Manipulation

Gaslight has been in my consciousness for as long as I can remember. As a much younger person it was such dark material; a husband who appeared loving but was in fact using manipulation to make his wife wonder about her own sanity, all in the name of him getting what he wanted.

My young mind saw it as movie material. I realize now that I never took the notion of someone doing something like that seriously. As time went by I'd read of a marriage gone sour and one killing the other, and over time I came to appreciate the fact that you are more likely to be killed by someone you know than a stranger. But, manipulation tactics, tactics used to manipulate the person someone professed to love, passed me by.

Manipulation isn't like rape or assault or even stealing all the money from your joint account and taking off with a lover. It is subtle, a little bit here and a little bit there. The clever person gets under your skin; knows you so well that he or she gets to understand what makes you tick; how hard you're willing to work to make a relationship succeed; how entirely possible it is for you to question your own behavior; how often you are willing to turn the other cheek.

Those that have been subjected to manipulation by someone who supposedly loves them tend to all have the same question. 'How did he learn these tactics?' It's a fair question because a person whose default position when pushed is to manipulate another person doesn't look a particular way or even act in a particular way most of the time. Most of the time they can look exactly what you would expect an upstanding member of the community to look like, and most of the time they act the way you would expect a reasonably loving person to behave.

I do wonder if people who become adept at using manipulation in personal relationships did in fact learn some of these tactics in their childhood. Perhaps they did some shady things and when suspicion fell on them they needed to concoct stories. Or, perhaps they had an overbearing adult in their lives such that they needed to make use of deceit to protect themselves.

In the process of protecting themselves they came to see that the world was 'dog eat dog'. To survive, or just to get their way, there were things they could, must, say and do; certain types of people with whom they could build a life, such that the odds of being in control were more certain.

Some tactics of manipulation are so prevalent that any manipulative personality worth his salt is not going to miss them. Raising one's voice, be that in public or privately at home, is a well honed tactic. What does the other person, and at home the other person is likely to be a quiet living sort of person who hates disagreement and shouting, going to do once the tone has been elevated such that neighbors will almost certainly hear. But, of course, the other person leaves the space to enable the manipulator to settle down.

Did the other person think that the shouting person had erupted on purpose; that he or she got all riled up on purpose? Maybe. Or, maybe it is thought there is a lack of self-control. Either way, the conversation has come to an end. Whatever was being discussed, not to the liking of the person who has started to shout, is now unresolved, just as was intended.

I think frustration leads almost anybody to sometimes shout back, by the way, but again, where does that lead? It does not lead to a civil, sharing of thoughts in a rational conversation between two people who need to sort a matter out.

When the default becomes that one person of a couple has the God given right to raise his or her voice whenever they feel something uncomfortable, perhaps a doubt being raised, or having to explain something, it doesn't take long before people around that person begin to 'walk on eggshells'. Once everybody is walking on eggshells, well, that person has everyone right where he or she wants them; concerned to raise a matter, keeping as quiet as possible, being agreeable; keeping opinions to themselves. Control is theirs for the taking.

The drama stops by putting up limits. The offended party may say, 'I can't go on talking to you until you stop shouting', or they can remove themselves from the situation. This is what is recommended. But do note, there is still complete control assumed by one party. Nothing was resolved. The affection takes a heavy hit until a more reasonable dynamic has come into place. But, what are the odds of a new default behavior; 50:50 at best. Once the fog lifts and the behavior is seen for what it is, well, you can never go back to being in the fog.

Raising one's voice is merely one of a good dozen of strategies used by those for whom winning means everything; for whom keeping another in the bottom down position is important. I think it is important to call them for what they are - manipulation strategies. In the world going forward people will be more and more informed about this sort of thing; expectations for playing fair will mean that people are more awake. That's a good thing.

Getting between a woman and her shoes

In pursuit of gifts for my mother to give to her family, a task I do for her so that she is less anxious about the holiday season, I came across hardtofind.com and on that site I happened to spot a pair of sandals that seemed to fit the bill for me for summer. They are white and tan, casual, with a bit of European flair.

I've been vacillating over them for a few weeks.  On occasion I enquire as to my husband's opinion of something I see online but he's currently working extremely long hours, so I decided to ask the opinion of a male online friend. That is, I sent a link to a picture of the shoe and asked if he liked them. He has a tendency to use one word responses and the word he chose was 'Nope'. I immediately shot back, ' Why don't you like them?' He explained that the shoe had a wedge and hence he didn't like the shoe. 'No wedges,' he said. (see what I mean about the responses?)

I had to absorb this information. I rather like espadrilles. You see countless pairs on the feet of women in France and Spain and they have always conjured for me that continental feel. Of course, as I thought about it some more, it made sense that he didn't like female shoes with a wedge shape. He likes all things hyper- feminine and whilst I would argue that my espadrilles can look quite feminine, they don't have the ultra-feminine look that he admires.

Just now, this morning, as flat chat as I am, I couldn't help myself. I simply had to do a review of my shoes. Sure, probably most of my shoes would absolutely pass the 'no wedges' test, but several of them would not. Almost unknowingly I had bought over the past years several shoes and sandals with a wedge.

I can only say that there must be an awful lot of wedge style shoes about that it seemed okay to me, or perhaps I was trying to tend towards a more casual style. I've so often been accused of being 'elegant', as if I am a bit too dressed up for the modern age and I think this might have influenced me to choose wedge style shoes at times for fear of being too dressed up in other styles.

For the first half day after this conversation, this friend of mine who is so inclined to make statements as if he is Moses on the hill issuing an edict, had me really irritated. Just because he didn't go for shoes with a wedge for girls shouldn't influence me! But, here's the truth. He had me rethinking the way I wear shoes and the way I put together outfits. Was I dressing to please some sense of how I should dress according to the overall public sensibility who surely don't really give a damn about my choices, or was I dressing to please myself?

I am most authentically myself not only in dresses and skirts but also in a style that resonates with me - good quality items of a relatively dateless style and feminine footwear. When I truly assessed the situation beautiful shoes are gathering dust in my wardrobe whilst I swan about mostly in casual footwear, attempting the 'dressed down' look. (And, by the way, it's not a money thing. The 'dressed down' look can be just as, if not more, expensive than the more 'dressed up' look.)

Here's part B of the truth too. I actually love it when a man steps up and says what he likes. I am way more comfortable with an edict than no edict. I'd almost love to be able to report that I don't care what he thinks about wedges. The facts are that I know myself so much better than that. You know what I am going to say, don't you? Yep. I won't be buying those shoes at hardtofind., nor any other wedge shaped shoes from now on. (Damn, but I am so easily lead!)

Secretary, revisited

My husband and I were sitting on the couch last night, me draped over his body as he allows me to do, when the movie Secretary came on. Since we knew the story very well it allowed for a different kind of viewing this time and my husband mentioned several times how extraordinarily well Spader and Gyllenhaul play out the dynamic, whilst I made mention of what a great screen play it is. Every scene drives the story onward and reveals more about what the characters want and what holds them back.

There are countless examples of the way the dynamic works for both of them but what jumps to my mind first is the scene encompassing the telephone answering lesson and the way Spader leads up to the difficult conversation topic of Miss Halloway's habit of cutting herself when under anxiety. Her first walk home after work after being given permission to breathe in fresh air with the full knowledge that she will 'never again' cut herself, exemplifies all that is great in the dynamic between a dominant and a submissive - the positive effect the dominant can have over his submissive's life.

For a time Miss Halloway only wants to please. Her typing mistakes are just that, until he stops playing with her and then she is more manipulative. She's so keen to feel his control and to be 'punished' that she lets the odd mistake go, in the full knowledge that he'll notice. Goodness. I would never do such a thing!

I admit I respond viscerally to the masturbation scenes since I know that it is critical to have in my mind thoughts that arouse, such as being given an instruction and knowing that however odd it might be, I am going to obey. She was told to eat four peas and so she did, and what a huge turn on that was for her. Only a truly submissive mind can understand how we really live for these moments of tight control and how they elevate us to a new dimension of life.

When such a dynamic is well in place disobedience is really something of a nightmare for both parties. To have an instruction refused must be deeply unsettling for the dominant, but I think it is important to understand that even whilst a submissive is creating havoc with her ministrations that she can't or won't do a task, she's suffering as well. It goes against every bone in the body to refuse to comply with an order and speaks to a very unsettled state of mind. It seems right to insist on obedience, the fastest way probably to restore good order,  but at the same time the decision to not comply needs to be more than noted. What led her to speak the unspeakable?

In Secretary there was no spanking, no telling off, that could interfere with the deep connection they had formed. She thrived on his control and suffered when he withdrew it. He doubted that they could do 'this' 24 hours a day but her only response to that was 'why not?' And, why not indeed? Together, they demonstrated what it is to love and live in their own way. It made us both smile. It reminded my husband that what I want is really very tender, sweet and most heartfelt.

Abandonment

Last night just before I went off to sleep I gave myself the little treat of reading a few people's blogs. One link led to another and I found myself on the blog of a man who wrote that he wasn't interested in submissives. He wanted a slave.

From there he went on to discuss his feelings about a woman whose blog he had read who must surely have self-esteem issues, he determined, because she objected to a Dominant using 'abandonment' techniques.

He felt this  a ridiculous thing to suggest and he strongly disagreed because what if the man was going out of town for four days? What would happen to the her then? No. She clearly needed to work on herself before she could give herself over to a Dominant if she thought he wasn't going to do whatever he wanted to do and that included abandoning her as he thought fit.

First of all, blind Freddy knows that the woman wasn't talking about her man going out of town for four days and leaving her on her own. That's not abandoning her; that's going out of town for four days. Abandonment is when the Dominant breaks off contact and/or communication with you as a mean of discipline or for some other emotional/psychological reason, without explaining himself. Abandonment is when the submissive is left bereft and in emotional pain. Abandonment is when the submissive is left confused and feeling unloved.

I sat back on my pillows and tried to get into the mind of a man who would write and would think such things. I think he was totally genuine and sincere in what he wrote. I think he believed it. So, I ask myself, are there men in the world who simply don't have the empathic gene? Are there men in the world who intentionally cause emotional pain to a woman; who can't find it in themselves to walk in her shoes and understand what it is to have a submissive nature and to be intentionally treated in this way...or even sub-consciously treated this way? Does one's heart not speak to them and demand that they communicate with their submissive and find a better way to deal with the issue at hand?

I've seen what happens when men fall out of love with their wives (and fall in love with another woman). I don't blame them necessarily for that, of course, but I do question why the love and the life they shared for over three decades is forgotten as they make financial settlements so arduous and painstaking and as they distance themselves from the children they once bounced on their knee.

Are there some men whose hearts are permanently in winter? I have to believe this is so from what I read. The definition of abandonment is:  'To withdraw one's support or help from, especially in spite of duty, allegiance, or responsibility; desert: abandon a friend in trouble." Is that what a man is entitled to do with the woman who has given herself to him? That's okay? That's kosher?


Communication failures are going to happen because as clever as we are, we're human and inclined to make mistakes. I can understand a man temporarily abandoning a woman, perhaps even unwittingly, and I can understand a woman temporarily feeling abandoned but the man returning to her to make his real feelings for her and the purpose of his actions understood. But, to say that abandoning her is his right? Oh boy, that really stinks.

 

Expressing upset

In a marriage or committed relationship, there are going to be times when one person is feeling down and the other person picks them up. The tables will be reversed constantly and there is an understanding that one person will be strong when the other is feeling weak. In a power exchange relationship the situation is no different. Just because one is the leader of the arrangement doesn't mean that he or she is going to always feel strong; confident; able; well.

Yet, those times when the dominant is not feeling himself are hard on the submissive. I don't think there is any doubt about that. We do tend to rely on the dominant for a source of energy. We come to depend on that in the same way that the dominant anticipates that the submissive will always be her sweet submissive self. Life isn't quite that perfect. I have said many times that I am happiest when we are both operating 'in the zone'. I love to feel the dominance and he loves to feel my submission to him. This is the optimum arrangement; the perfect day.

However, I am well aware that it is very important for all people to take responsibility for their own emotions as well as to set limits for their emotional well being. Of course, some power dynamic relationships have aspects of  Narcissist/ co-dependent about them. One partner may need the others approval and attention to feel good about him or herself whilst the other partner is inclined to enjoy admiration and being in complete control.

All is well in a relationship where these two components of personality are in play until something gives. Perhaps, the partner with control withdraws attention, for whatever reason. For the co-dependent, this state of play will lead to a sense of withdrawal: depression, anxiety and mental pain. Time lapses and the narcissistic partner gives a 'shot'  of attention and the co-dependent partner feels better again, only to feel worse the next time it happens. A vicious cycle is suddenly in place that leads to emotional torment.

In a situation like this, I am not at all sure that it is a good idea to think of one person as the bad guy and one person as the victim. I think what is important is that the vicious cycle is broken. This is going to take the hard work of both people involved. There is no easy fix here. Realistically, I think you have to start with yourself. I think you have to open your eyes to your own involvement in this unhealthy  dynamic.

For many people with a submissive nature it goes against the grain to set limits as to what they will accept of their partner, but healthy people in healthy relationships do have limits. I don't mean that they won't do something that is, in their estimation, unacceptable such as...I don't know...play with animals.... I mean that they won't tolerate this or that manipulative behavior from their partner.. They won't allow their partner to manipulate them full stop.

People with submissive natures are inclined to give in; to be soft; to want to please; to humor the other person and to agree, even if they don't really agree at all.

In a power exchange relationship it is very important to know within yourself what is acceptable to you and what is unacceptable and to voice those issues when they occur. The other person may not like that but it is important for both members of the relationship not to allow an unhealthy relationship to evolve. It is entirely appropriate and healthy for the bottom of the relationship to express her concerns, her disagreement and the fact that something that the top is doing is unacceptable to her. It is important to do this in optimal ways, of course. That's key. But, the bottom line is that it must be done.

It is about checks and balances and sometimes the bottom is going to need the top to settle down and contemplate his own behavior for a time, rather than hers. Respect is a mutual thing in a power exchange relationship and if she is deeply upset and unsettled, she is probably upset for good reason. Mutual respect and open communication should allow a relationship to grow.

No-one likes to make mistakes. No-one wants to feel shame or guilt. We all want to be admired and loved. We can all be inclined to be self-centered or to lack empathy for the other person. It makes sense therefore that the more we check in with one another about conduct unbecoming, the better off we all will be.

The power exchange relationship is the perfect place to put this into action. I see the power exchange dynamic as a fluid thing; two people working well together to make the perfect whole. Perfection won't happen unless the submissive sees it as her duty to take some responsibility to see that the relationship remains in a good state of health. She is responsible for her own mental health and also for speaking up when she believes it important to do so. The wise top will (eventually) understand that her intentions are entirely honorable and appropriate.

Over to the other side

I chose to pursue English Literature when I was at university. The poet that most affected me was Emily Dickinson.

Because I could not stop for Death,
He kindly stopped for me;
The carriage held but just ourselves
And Immortality.
We slowly drove, he knew no haste,
And I had put away
My labor, and my leisure too,
For his civility.

We passed the school, where children strove
At recess, in the ring;
We passed the fields of gazing grain,
We passed the setting sun.

Or rather, he passed us;
The dews grew quivering and chill,
For only gossamer my gown,
My tippet only tulle.

We paused before a house that seemed
A swelling of the ground;
The roof was scarcely visible,
The cornice but a mound.

Since then 'tis centuries, and yet each
Feels shorter than the day
I first surmised the horses' heads
Were toward eternity.

There was something so haunting in her words for me; her quiet acceptance of death being another stage in her life, and I returned to this poem, over and over.

There is another lovely poem of hers:


We grow accustomed to the Dark—
When light is put away—
As when the Neighbor holds the Lamp
To witness her Goodbye—

A Moment—We uncertain step
For newness of the night—
Then—fit our Vision to the Dark—
And meet the Road—erect—

And so of larger—Darkness—
Those Evenings of the Brain—
When not a Moon disclose a sign—
Or Star—come out—within—

The Bravest—grope a little—
And sometimes hit a Tree
Directly in the Forehead—
But as they learn to see—

Either the Darkness alters—
Or something in the sight
Adjusts itself to Midnight—
And Life steps almost straight.


She had such a lovely sense of how we adapt - either the darkness alters, or something in the sight adjusts itself to midnight. Isn't that just how it is!?

I have groped in the darkness in this journey of mine. I can't say that the darkness altered. I'm not entirely sure that is possible. Rather, I have waited for something in the sight to adjust itself to midnight. That has happened before and it will likely happen again.

But, in the early sunlight of a new day I can't help but be reminded of a favourite, more innocent poem:

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

What are little boys made of?
What are little boys made of?
Frogs and snails and puppy-dogs' tails,
And that are little boys made of.

What are little girls made of?
What are little girls made of?
Sugar and spice and all things nice,
And that are little girls made of.

What are young men made of?
What are young men made of?
Sighs and leers, and crocodile tears,
And that are young men made of.

What are young women made of?
What are young women made of?
Ribbons and laces, and sweet pretty faces,
And that are young women made of.


And, I ask myself, why do wicked boys want to lure sweet girls over to the dark side where they surely don't want to go...?

Calculated risk

“Do you acknowledge that you should be punished?”

“Yes Sir.”

“You understand that you have been a bad girl?”

“Yes Sir.”

“It must be a severe punishment this time. It is what was agreed this time, was it not?”

“Yes Sir.”

“I would like some suggestions from you, please, as to what would constitute a severe punishment, such that you think twice before you ever think to do this again.”

“Yes Sir.”

“Give me five suggestions. Write them down.”

She takes a piece of pristine white paper, and picks up her fountain pen. She thinks. She calculates. She notes down the page the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

For number one, she writes, 25 strokes of the cane.

For number five, she writes, a hand spanking, over his knee.

For number two, she writes, 12 strokes of the tawse.

For number three, she writes, 18 strokes of his belt.

For number four, she writes, 10 strokes of the riding crop.

She is confident that he will choose from the three middle choices. She relaxes. She is in control.

She takes the piece of paper to him, sitting at his desk and hands it over. He looks up at her, searching for any manipulation.

She looks down; appears pensive, repentant.

He takes from his top drawer a pair of scissors and cuts the paper into ribbons. He makes five little balls of paper. He puts them in his hat. She looks on; concerned.She had not expected this.She must take a chance.

He invites her to choose a paper ball from the hat. She does so and hands the crumpled paper to him.

“Number one. Fetch the cane, my dear.”

Not all risk is worth taking. This lesson she learned this day.