More Anticipation of the Trip

Packing and Pre-Trip Anxiety

MW and I are getting ready for our trip. It will require loading our vehicle with things that we need, things that we want, things that we may or may not need depending on the weather, etc. A rain or snow storm is predicted on our day of departure. We are planning to cross some high mountains, so we need to have survival items for contingencies. All of this means that we will take a lot of stuff that we will not use, and wish that we had brought others.

She has already told me to bring the piercing kit for a possible addition to my current state of anatomy enhancement. Might come in handy when we get snowed in. I get turned on every time that I think of it. She is aware of it, of course. It is unmistakable if you know where to look, and in my “natural state” it is quite easy. This morning she also said that I should pack a pair of sweatpants in case I need to wear something comfortable in public while being encumbered by things. I think that I convinced her (with respect!) that I am not a sweatpants man. I would rather wear something like a size larger than needed pair of old Levi’s which I happen to have. Of course, the topic gave me another erection. Yes, I need to contain myself.

Power Exchange

You may need to fasten your seatbelts before reading this posting. It is not just the controversial nature of the subject, although it may be controversial within our narrow context. It is more having to do with one’s credibility or willingness to visualize abstract concepts such as “the thing is there, only it is not”. All right. I am just toying with you. You will do fine.

A reader made a comment on my prior post about my meaning of “Exchange of power.” Since I don’t have anything of sensual or sexual or kinky nature to report this time in anticipation of the trip, I think that this would be a good time to define what I was talking about.

“You can keep digging deeper and deeper and find yourself coming out at the other side.” I am saying this again, and will probably repeat it as long as I support this blog. One reason is that I may have forgotten that I said it before. Hey, wine will do that to you! The other, the real reason, is to point out how some lines of reasoning can circle back in unexpected ways. I will give you an example.

Say, there is a man who deems himself submissive and selfless, and wants to serve a woman unconditionally. Her pleasure, her desire, her authority are paramount, whereas his are not. Let’s see, now, who gets what out of this relationship? By his own admission he gets nothing (he is selfless). By his own desire of selfless servitude she gets everything. Hm. I see something wrong here: he gets what he wants, she gets what he gives her.

You could turn this around, and assume that there is a woman who wants and needs to dominate a man. She succeeds to form a relationship that allows her to do just that. If the man wants to be dominated, is she really dominating him? If the man did not want to be dominated, my guess is that he would back out of the relationship. So, the question again, is, “Is she really dominating him, or is she giving him what he wants?”

I am not at all suggesting that the only male submissive relationship between male and female is when the male voluntarily gives up power to the female. If that were the truth, then the assumption that the male had all the power to begin with would have to be true. I see it differently.

I have demonstrated in an earlier post that all relationships are D/S. Their rules are dictated by the dominance scale that maintains a stable relationship. In this sense the dominance scale is a measure of power exchange. It is analogous to energy as defined in the physical sciences. One can not have energy, and one can not use up or waste energy. The only thing that one can do with energy is to convert it from one form or manifestation to another and reap the benefits in the process. Also observe that energy is essentially limitless in this universe (there is entropy but I don’t want to be too side-tracked by discussing it). One is not born with a given amount of energy and eventually use it up before or at death. Worse even, if one were to use it up while still living, what would he do for energy later?

In a like manner power can be defined from a psychological perspective (not physical as in the physical sciences) as “an ability to manipulate others.” One is not born with an amount of power that one can use up and then become powerless. Power by itself is useless unless one applies it to get what one wants. So, like energy, one can not have power and one can not give power to another person and possess less power as a result. But one can convert power into benefits. This enables the other person to use power to manipulate the one who receives the benefit in exchange. As to which person gets or receives the power conversion or the benefit is one of my circular assertions about “digging deeper and deeper until you come out the other side.”

As a final observation I will say that, “Power exchange is always defined from a certain perspective, and that another perspective will see the same in a completely different way.” Still, it is a convenient means to describe one’s point of view.

I am not sure where I was going with this, but I seem to have arrived where I started. It reminds me of the “European Vacation” movie where the Griswold family is traveling in a traffic circle in London.