(no subject)
12 July 2018 13:32![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
haptalaonHmmm so I think what I'm doing is relating it to my experience of unicorning. A unicorn is a bisexual babe who's up for hooking up with heterosexual couples, and they're called unicorns because everybody wants one and no one knows how to behave to get one.
Check out Unicorns R Us to find out more what that's like...
Anyway, I guess I'm assessing these coven entry procedures the same way Unicorns R Us assesses "unicorn hunting" couples. And they're throwing up the kind of red flags which mean I would not give an advert a second look:
"We are a committed couple looking for a third. Our third must be this height and not fat and cisgender and into being the sub in this very specific fantasy we have as a couple. You can only meet one of the pair for your probation process; at the end of which we expect you to commit to joining our relationship. We want to train you so you are our perfect submissive and ensure you have all the skills needed to serve us - we are experienced dominants and will show you everything you need to know. For the right person, we are interested in a long term relationship where you could move in and go on holiday with us, but please understand we are in a committed relationship and our marriage always comes first.
Why does nobody ever reply to our advert???"
Unicorns R Us does a really good job of breaking down why that's a bad dynamic and no one ought to go for it, in a step by step way. It boils down to -the couple are looking for a specialist sex worker/sex toy, rather than a person, and they're basing the process on a predetermined idea of a perfect thing they what to slot into their lives rather than being open to building something with an individual; and the balance of power is clearly with the couple to ditch the third at any time without warning, while requiring her to jump a considerable set of hurdles for them.
I wonder to what extent my "coven hunting as online dating" analogy is accurate and fair? For me, it's the nearest similar experience I have to base it on. But my instinct is that the bits that count, are the same. And it works well not because you've found a submissive who shares 100% of your kinks and values and life goals, but because you've found a cool person you like to chill with.
I look at an advert like this and see no room for my fantasies or needs, no room to contribute or participate equally, no "rights" or sense of being valued as an individual. What I'm looking for is - are these people looking for an individual, or a prop? Are they open to trying new things? How do they treat each other as a couple? Is their relationship strong? If I don't fit neatly into the slot, are they going to dump me on the spot or do we have a genuine relationship where things are worked through? The problem with "we are looking for a redhead of X height with Y fetishes and Z normative body features" isn't just that one doesn't meet the requirements, but that they are looking for a fantasy - fixed, closed off - rather than a relationship - organic, open, experimental, responsive.
It's delicate and subtle. In relationships and coven both, you do need to set some agreed grounds - for example, there's no point in a duality coven welcoming someone who immediately insists they only do goddess work. But what I'm looking for in couples is flexibility. I'm looking for people I can say "I've never tried X, but can we do Y?" to, and get warmth and enthusiasm back, rather than "no. We only do X. You are expected to only do X or we will expel you". Is this space open to experimentation and nuance, or are they looking for a ritual prop? Is the bloke looking for a sex worker while being too cheap to hire one, or are they actually looking for a girlfriend? Is the coven looking for another working partner, or just a person to have "I am a mentor" power fantasies over? Am I in an environment where, commensurate to the work and time I have put in, I will be valued - or am I some sort of disposable prop they can replace when broken? And so on.
I don't think it's a good idea for me to overlook or ignore my instincts on a thing like this; but at the same time, it's possible things are different in ways I don't quite understand.
Check out Unicorns R Us to find out more what that's like...
Anyway, I guess I'm assessing these coven entry procedures the same way Unicorns R Us assesses "unicorn hunting" couples. And they're throwing up the kind of red flags which mean I would not give an advert a second look:
"We are a committed couple looking for a third. Our third must be this height and not fat and cisgender and into being the sub in this very specific fantasy we have as a couple. You can only meet one of the pair for your probation process; at the end of which we expect you to commit to joining our relationship. We want to train you so you are our perfect submissive and ensure you have all the skills needed to serve us - we are experienced dominants and will show you everything you need to know. For the right person, we are interested in a long term relationship where you could move in and go on holiday with us, but please understand we are in a committed relationship and our marriage always comes first.
Why does nobody ever reply to our advert???"
Unicorns R Us does a really good job of breaking down why that's a bad dynamic and no one ought to go for it, in a step by step way. It boils down to -the couple are looking for a specialist sex worker/sex toy, rather than a person, and they're basing the process on a predetermined idea of a perfect thing they what to slot into their lives rather than being open to building something with an individual; and the balance of power is clearly with the couple to ditch the third at any time without warning, while requiring her to jump a considerable set of hurdles for them.
I wonder to what extent my "coven hunting as online dating" analogy is accurate and fair? For me, it's the nearest similar experience I have to base it on. But my instinct is that the bits that count, are the same. And it works well not because you've found a submissive who shares 100% of your kinks and values and life goals, but because you've found a cool person you like to chill with.
I look at an advert like this and see no room for my fantasies or needs, no room to contribute or participate equally, no "rights" or sense of being valued as an individual. What I'm looking for is - are these people looking for an individual, or a prop? Are they open to trying new things? How do they treat each other as a couple? Is their relationship strong? If I don't fit neatly into the slot, are they going to dump me on the spot or do we have a genuine relationship where things are worked through? The problem with "we are looking for a redhead of X height with Y fetishes and Z normative body features" isn't just that one doesn't meet the requirements, but that they are looking for a fantasy - fixed, closed off - rather than a relationship - organic, open, experimental, responsive.
It's delicate and subtle. In relationships and coven both, you do need to set some agreed grounds - for example, there's no point in a duality coven welcoming someone who immediately insists they only do goddess work. But what I'm looking for in couples is flexibility. I'm looking for people I can say "I've never tried X, but can we do Y?" to, and get warmth and enthusiasm back, rather than "no. We only do X. You are expected to only do X or we will expel you". Is this space open to experimentation and nuance, or are they looking for a ritual prop? Is the bloke looking for a sex worker while being too cheap to hire one, or are they actually looking for a girlfriend? Is the coven looking for another working partner, or just a person to have "I am a mentor" power fantasies over? Am I in an environment where, commensurate to the work and time I have put in, I will be valued - or am I some sort of disposable prop they can replace when broken? And so on.
I don't think it's a good idea for me to overlook or ignore my instincts on a thing like this; but at the same time, it's possible things are different in ways I don't quite understand.
no subject
Date: 12 July 2018 13:45 (UTC)I do think there's a dynamic worth poking at: on average, a functioning group needs/wants a new person less than a new sincere seeker needs/wants the group.
And adding a new person is, on average, dozens of hours of effort on the group's part (probably double or triple what the new person is putting in, in the early stages, and then evening out to about the same level of effort on both sides, because there's a bunch of logistics load on the front end.)
Which is fine if there's a great fit, and a lot more complicated in the majority of cases when it's not (see my previous comments about statistics.) And the cases where it goes really badly can be actively destructive to a group that was otherwise functioning and doing things everyone in the group enjoyed/got stuff out of.
I think the space for experiment also varies a lot - I'm really up front about the "I want to do the practices of my tradition, we may occasionally experiment with different approaches as a learning experience or to develop skills, but if you're not interested in this set of stuff, we're not a good fit, because this is the set of stuff I've decided to spend my time and energy on, and those things are limited."
(Which I'm up front about, because like you say, that seems fair.)
There is a pattern of people coming into existing groups and wanting to change lots of things, and I think that makes groups extra wary of it happening again, and taking defensive postures against it.
no subject
Date: 5 September 2018 16:38 (UTC)I think fundamentally, it's a very difficult thing to get right for everyone involved. Even if there is an unequal power dynamic - there's no easy way to "solve" it, and perhaps no reason to either. Interpersonal relationships can't be ruled by fixed or ideological constructs. And what we're talking about is, fundamentally, a relationship containing all the members of a coven, the relationship which makes them all want to work together both personally and in terms of shared spiritual values.
Cheers for all your thoughts. The one thing is, I do feel a bit more positive about reaching out and a bit less instinctively paranoiac about the whole thing.
no subject
Date: 5 September 2018 16:45 (UTC)1) Some of the stuff we do a certain way because it's agreed in the tradition that's how we do it. There are other ways, but I've agreed to do this one, and I'm going to keep that commitment.
(In many cases, I'm glad to talk about the details with people, but they get to decide if that's okay with them or not, not argue that I should change things. Or rather, they can argue, but it'll lead to "Guess we're not the right fit, then.")
2) Some of the stuff we do a certain way because we're meeting in a given place that is my home and/or because I am the one running it, and I'm going to make sure I do that in a way that works for me.
(Which among other things means people don't get invited to stuff if I don't want them in my home.)
3) There's a bunch of stuff that's up for grabs, and I picked at a thing because we had to pick a thing to make it work, but we can change it if we decide we need to.
Which one of those three is in play at any particular point can be really hard to tell, so I try to flag at least the stuff that is 'I had to pick a thing'