Wednesday, September 9, 2009

The Leap - Honesty

Read Faith first.

I certainly agree with those who argue that total honesty is not always the reality to which anyone is entitled.  Frankly, I think being completely and utterly honest at every moment, about every minute thought and deed is an impossibility.  Nor is it deceptive if the rebellious thoughts are fleeting and internalized rather than externalized in action.  No human being has complete control over their thoughts; all we can guarantee is how those thoughts are expressed – or IF they are.

I also think our society is actually accepting and in fact encouraging of ‘small’ dishonesties .. those not meant to deceive but to be kind. Lies of omission perhaps are open to interpretation but surely to spare someone’s feelings it is kinder to utter words that are in essence, a “lie”.  These little subterfuges after all, are often called not lies but ‘social graces’.

But swan, alice n and chloe also tackle something far removed from that kind of benign omittace.

They admit instead that they have, in their submission, given full permission to their Masters to tell them as little – or as much – as he chooses. Further, each admits frankly that even when/if a lie is revealed, that is neither a deterrent nor a deal-breaker – because they have made the leap TO faith. That the person who steers their destiny is, by definition and agreement, exempt from the societal norm of “complete honesty between partners”.  The crux, of course, being they are NOT partners, for by definition, each of them has freely given up the right to equal treatment.

I find it telling that for me, my thoughts baulk at that kind of acceptance.  While part of me is in awe of the level of faith that incorporates, and yes, even admiring at some level – another part of me – the inner, reptile-brain of selkie – finds that frightening.  The feminist selkie screams this is what our mothers used to do and so many were deceived and left bereft.  The selkie with her life experiences knows that faith can be broken, trust shattered.

I comprehend that certain individuals have chosen to place their faith and offered their trust to individuals whom they have allowed a freedom of thought, action and intent radically different than that vouchsafed them 
– and that of course is their right.  In its own way it is breathtakingly admirable – and for me, impossible to emulate.

Which of course brings me to the next thought which I believe naturally flows from this ....


mouse said...

I've often told Omega that if I ask him if my ass looks big in this dress I'm wearing he'd better damn well better lie to me. LMAO.

However if omitting something is the same as lying then line me up because i'm totally guilty of that.

Here is where I run into problems...if I lie to Omega and tell him that I love something he does when I don't and he finds out later that I really don't....then I've lied to him. Doesn't that damage his trust in me? If he lied to me and told me he was going to a SA meeting and instead went to a nudie bar, my faith in him would be shattered...never mind the trust...that was blown just before the faith left...

I'll think about this more...


selkie said...

mouse, that is it - it is FAR too simplistic to bleat "total honesty"- in all truth it is like saying SCC when practicing BDSM! Hell, it's like the DNR designation for god's sake - there are just so many shades of grey and blue and green and you name it in any of those situations.

Anonymous said...

Actually Selkie, I don't find the idea of total honesty hard or far-fetched. I do find the idea of 'you tell me what I should know' dangerous. On this topic there seems to be attempts to either justify or obscure the issue. Do you allow or encourage someone to deceive you? Is that indicative of the level of respect they have for you? that you have for yourself? This comment is about to become a post, (sheesh do they even have cliff-notes for comments), oh well, the discussion continues, ttys I am sure :) CD

selkie said...

CD - agreed that "you know what I choose you to know" is a slipper slope and definitely NOT for me. However, for certain dynamics it seems to work. I personally cannot conceive of one that I would be happy in using that premise. But at the same time, I dont think every single little thought or action has to be brought out, studied and discussed. I think everyone is entitled to some little private pieces of themselves.

swan said...

Selkie -- I find your analysis and exploration of this subject intriguing. You have come as close as anyone that I have seen to drawing a credible picture of the fear that is obviously engendered in many people when the notion that one partner might have different expectations and requirements in regard to relational "honesty." As with so many other choices that people face in the BDSM lifestyle, I believe that an individual's willingness, interest, and even capacity to choose THAT kind of uneven relationship is rooted deeply in our unique histories. None of us is a blank slate and our pasts shape our nows for good and bad.
I don't know that I need to know everything in order to be safe and secure in this relationship. Others clearly experience a range of different needs in that regard.
I wouldn't go there with just anyone. I wouldn't go there with almost anyone I can think of. With Master, I have evolved to a point where I feel that I can go there. For me, that feels like a milestone reached.


selkie said...

swan, exactly- the "need to know" will be as individual in character as the people in the different relationships.