Earn This!

[SinfulSailor]

Captain Miller says to Private Ryan, "Earn this. Earn it."

Sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees.

I've read for years submissives saying their trust has to be "earned", or their submission has to be "earned". And it finally struck me what is wrong with this concept.

Of course it all sounds fine. No one wants to misplace trust. But we all do that all the time. We trust the salesman. We trust our phone company to make our phone work when we need it. We trust other drivers to stop at the stop signs and red lights, and to stay in their lane. But of course we're often let down. The salesman lied. The phone drops the most important call at the worst possible moment and other drivers run stop signs just as we're passing in front.

No one wants to be let down. So when I see a submissive saying "earn this", well, I understand where they're coming from.

But hey. Wait a minute. What's the reality of this?

Captain Miller (and others) died so Private Ryan could live. Captain Miller is a captain. Private Ryan is a private. Rank. Plus, Miller figures Ryan owes him. So Miller demands, "Earn this." Ok

But to demand that something be "earned" is, of course, a demand. And the problem with that - in our little subculture - is that when the submissive demands..... then the submissive has turned the tables and has become the dominant.

I think that in many instances this immediately dooms the relationship they are both hoping to establish. I wonder if the submissive will ever really be happy with a dominant who will comply with demands.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Have to disagree as until someone submits, though they may be a submissive, they are not submissive to anyone and everyone. I also am a great believer in that being submissive does not mean you have to be brainless, stupid, naive, gullible, disposable, worthless, weak, inexperienced at life, or willing to submit to anyone who beats their chest and says, 'Me Dominant, you submissive and on your knees'. Guess it depends on what type submissive you want. For me, someone who was willing to trust blindly without knowing a person or their worth/abilities/virtues and submit to anyone wouldn't hold much interest as they would basically be demonstrating they are willing to offer the same to anyone, thus not putting any great value at all in the one they submit to..they also would possibly be indicating they were desperate and/or seeking someone to direct their lives for them to free them from responsibility, thought, or effort. Not my scene. I also do not see it as meaning they expect their demands to be catered to, more so that they are being sensible in not falling at the feet of a HNG or any other such animal who isn't what they profess to be. LOL, you see, as far as I see it anyone can call themselves a Dominant but if they are not wanting or able to dominate it sort of defeats the purpose of someone looking for a PYL to counter their submission.

Catalina

 

[JMohegan]

I agree with everything Catalina wrote, but would add that there's a way to do this that appeals to me personally, and a way that would totally turn me off.

Some woman acting as if she's setting up a bunch of hoops, for a guy to jump through to win her fabulousness, is just gonna make me start laughing. It isn't that I think she could never function as a submissive in a relationship. It's just that an attitude like that conveys what I consider to be a warped view of the dating process.

I much prefer someone who sees the establishment of trust as a mutual, reciprocal endeavor. Part of the process by which each learns about the other's personality, ethical grounding, world view, and so on. As I learn to trust her, she learns to trust me. A critical principle, the foundation of the relationship, but one that works both ways.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I agree with everything Catalina wrote, but would add that there's a way to do this that appeals to me personally, and a way that would totally turn me off.

Some woman acting as if she's setting up a bunch of hoops, for a guy to jump through to win her fabulousness, is just gonna make me start laughing. It isn't that I think she could never function as a submissive in a relationship. It's just that an attitude like that conveys what I consider to be a warped view of the dating process.

I much prefer someone who sees the establishment of trust as a mutual, reciprocal endeavor. Part of the process by which each learns about the other's personality, ethical grounding, world view, and so on. As I learn to trust her, she learns to trust me. A critical principle, the foundation of the relationship, but one that works both ways.

I also agree with your point. I read somewhere recently a submissive saying she would see if the PYL she was seeing could jump through her hoops and it did nothing positive for me, nor seemed remotely connected to the way I approached my own search for a PYL. I guess we are all different, but I just don't get making a PYL jump through hoops as a very submissive positive mindset. Respect and healthy observance on the other hand worked well for me.

Catalina

 

[ataxia.girl]

I think that in many instances this immediately dooms the relationship they are both hoping to establish. I wonder if the submissive will ever really be happy with a dominant who will comply with demands.

The other side of this is there are (i have met and submitted to them) plenty of D's out there for whom the easier the trust and submission comes the less they value it. This may be for good reason as it means the submission is not personalized and for many D's i think they want to feel that the submission of their submissive is personalized to them as a Dominant.

i agree that the trust must be built incrementally by both parties for it to be real otherwise the submissive is placing their trust in some kind of ideal and not in the Dominant as an individual.

 

[Corylea]

D/S is extremely personal for me. When I take on somebody as a submissive, it isn't because I want "a sub;" it's because I want that particular person. On the rare occasions when I feel like subbing (I'm a switch), it's because one particular person has brought out that part of me.

I never go looking for a submissive or for a dominant -- I go looking for friends in the BDSM community. Some of those friends will turn into play partners, some into lovers, and some will stay friends. But by making friends first, we're creating a foundation of trust and caring and getting to know one another. And if nothing ever happens but friendship, well, friends are good, too.

I can do sensation play relatively casually, with people I think of as acquaintances, but for me, D/S is intensely personal, and I'm not moved to do it -- either end of it -- except with someone I trust and care for. It doesn't have to be "true love," but I do have to have the sense that my partner and I matter to one another.

 

[subbie_333]

Captain Miller says to Private Ryan, "Earn this. Earn it."

Sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees.

I've read for years submissives saying their trust has to be "earned", or their submission has to be "earned". And it finally struck me what is wrong with this concept.

Of course it all sounds fine. No one wants to misplace trust. But we all do that all the time. We trust the salesman. We trust our phone company to make our phone work when we need it. We trust other drivers to stop at the stop signs and red lights, and to stay in their lane. But of course we're often let down. The salesman lied. The phone drops the most important call at the worst possible moment and other drivers run stop signs just as we're passing in front.

No one wants to be let down. So when I see a submissive saying "earn this", well, I understand where they're coming from.

But hey. Wait a minute. What's the reality of this?

Captain Miller (and others) died so Private Ryan could live. Captain Miller is a captain. Private Ryan is a private. Rank. Plus, Miller figures Ryan owes him. So Miller demands, "Earn this." Ok

But to demand that something be "earned" is, of course, a demand. And the problem with that - in our little subculture - is that when the submissive demands..... then the submissive has turned the tables and has become the dominant.

I think that in many instances this immediately dooms the relationship they are both hoping to establish. I wonder if the submissive will ever really be happy with a dominant who will comply with demands.

Perhaps you need to clarify when in the relationship that you see this demand happening. If it is made in order to enter into the relationship, then, the demand is justified. If the demand is made after the relationship has gone along for awhile, then, the submissive jumped into the relationship too soon.

 

[cherokee_dove]

~snip~

I've read for years submissives saying their trust has to be "earned", or their submission has to be "earned". And it finally struck me what is wrong with this concept.

Of course it all sounds fine. No one wants to misplace trust. But we all do that all the time. We trust the salesman. We trust our phone company to make our phone work when we need it. We trust other drivers to stop at the stop signs and red lights, and to stay in their lane. But of course we're often let down. The salesman lied. The phone drops the most important call at the worst possible moment and other drivers run stop signs just as we're passing in front.

No one wants to be let down. So when I see a submissive saying "earn this", well, I understand where they're coming from.

But hey. Wait a minute. What's the reality of this?

When you talk about the salesman, the phone company, and other drivers; you are talking about the every day "vanilla" part of peoples lives. We just vaguely, if at all; know those people.

In BDSM, you are putting your life into someone else's hands. Someone that you know has "earned" the trust that you are handing them.

Its like you put your heart, (the physical mass called the heart) into his or her hands.

And you know they have your complete trust to not destroy that physical mass.

That is the difference of "earning" trust within the BDSM realm, compared to trusting those we just vaguely know.

 

[Netzach]

I dunno. It's a delicate balance. I don't do tests I'm set up to fail - submit to me or don't, don't dick me around.

But I also don't care for anything instant and brainless, really. The whole point is that it's better when I've earned it, it's better when I'm getting them to do something no one else on earth can by dint of my amazing amounts of patience and care and the trust chips I've got banked. I don't mind when someone says "well, I want to know yet more about you" for a long time.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

This is one of the reasons I was drawn to slavery, as opposed to D/s. The concept of fairness, quid pro quo and earning rewards is not one that attracts me. Everything now is at Master's discretion. If I do something above and beyond what he would expect from me, I'm not thinking to myself "He better go down on me for at least half an hour for this!" He can reward me if he wants but he's not obliged to, which makes any spontaneous treat or reward much more special. Master tends to do romantic things according to his mood rather than how I may or may not have served him that week, which makes it even less to do with my service.

The same thing is true of punishments. I don't have a list of possible transgressions and a sliding scale of chastisement to refer to if I fuck up or have a bad day and get belligerent.

Moi? *bats eyelashes*

If I piss him off, he'll warn me. If I continue to piss him off, he'll throw a bunch of unpleasant chores at me and if PMT has left me borderline suicidal that day and I still manage to upset him further, I get punished. It's usually according to his mood or mine and it takes a great deal to piss Master off to that degree because I'm generally a very service oriented, diligent possession. Each day is generally a new day and nothing gets carried over or dragged up, which I value very much. There's something very cathartic about suffering a punishment because it's a way of atoning so that it can be put completely behind us.

 

[intothewoods]

I dunno. It's a delicate balance. I don't do tests I'm set up to fail - submit to me or don't, don't dick me around.

But I also don't care for anything instant and brainless, really. The whole point is that it's better when I've earned it, it's better when I'm getting them to do something no one else on earth can by dint of my amazing amounts of patience and care and the trust chips I've got banked. I don't mind when someone says "well, I want to know yet more about you" for a long time.

It really is a delicate balance. Trust isn't something so tangible that you can calculate it. Aha! You did x, y and z, now I can trust you.

 

[SinfulSailor]

Have to disagree
Catalina

Ok. But then you didn't write what it is with which you disagree. You wrote some other stuff. And I didn't find us in deep disagreement on the things about which you wrote.

Some woman acting as if she's setting up a bunch of hoops, for a guy to jump through to win her fabulousness, is just gonna make me start laughing.

That's what I'm talkin' about. But I see it as bigger than that. Is she setting herself up to fail? Is the PYL who does jump through those hoops showing himself to be the kind of PYL who will fulfill her needs as a pyl throughout the relationship? I gotta say it seems unlikely.

It isn't that I think she could never function as a submissive in a relationship.

Ok. But obviously, dominating and submitting are different. My question is, are the (self-styled) PYL's who do jump through those hoops showing themselves able to "function" (as you put it) as the dominant?

I really don't think so. I think they are showing themselves unable.

It's just that an attitude like that conveys what I consider to be a warped view of the dating process.

I much prefer someone who sees the establishment of trust as a mutual, reciprocal endeavor. Part of the process by which each learns about the other's personality, ethical grounding, world view, and so on. As I learn to trust her, she learns to trust me. A critical principle, the foundation of the relationship, but one that works both ways.

Exactly.

There ain't no free lunch. These things can't be rushed by setting up some kind of yardstick. It just takes time.

I also agree with your point. I read somewhere recently a submissive saying she would see if the PYL she was seeing could jump through her hoops and it did nothing positive for me, nor seemed remotely connected to the way I approached my own search for a PYL. I guess we are all different, but I just don't get making a PYL jump through hoops as a very submissive positive mindset. Respect and healthy observance on the other hand worked well for me.

Catalina

Ah. Then I think we are in agreement all along.

The other side of this is there are (i have met and submitted to them) plenty of D's out there for whom the easier the trust and submission comes the less they value it.

I am very sympathetic that you have chosen to submit to fuckups who do not value your submission. I'm sure it is a painful and negative experience in many (maybe most) ways.

In hope that it help you better put things in perspective, I will share with you that pyl's don't have a monopoly on being disappointed by the other person. PYL's get mislead and let down too. Often in very important ways.

I think our internal, personal challenge whether dominant or submissive is to not let those bad experiences color our outlook so destructively as to make us so cynical as to ruin a good thing when it finally comes along at long last. I think we have to be willing to be disappointed. I think we have to be brave and strong enough to be able to do that to have any reasonable expectation of creating a new, quality relationship.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Like that.

i agree that the trust must be built incrementally by both parties for it to be real otherwise the submissive is placing their trust in some kind of ideal and not in the Dominant as an individual.

Exactly.

I never go looking for a submissive or for a dominant -- I go looking for friends in the BDSM community. Some of those friends will turn into play partners, some into lovers, and some will stay friends. But by making friends first, we're creating a foundation of trust and caring and getting to know one another. And if nothing ever happens but friendship, well, friends are good, too.

A healthy approach, I think. And more to the point, an approach that is not going to send out a negative message to the very person you might be interested in attracting.

~snip~

When you talk about the salesman, the phone company, and other drivers; you are talking about the every day "vanilla" part of peoples lives. We just vaguely, if at all; know those people.

In BDSM, you are putting your life into someone else's hands. Someone that you know has "earned" the trust that you are handing them.

Its like you put your heart, (the physical mass called the heart) into his or her hands.

And you know they have your complete trust to not destroy that physical mass.

That is the difference of "earning" trust within the BDSM realm, compared to trusting those we just vaguely know.

Read the poster just above. That writer did not have the problem you describe.

Are you rushing things? Gawd! BDSM does not by definition involve "putting your life into someone else's hands" any more than a vanilla affair. I mean, going home with someone is going home with someone. Inviting someone into your home is inviting someone into your home. A hotel room is a hotel room. I mean.... if you've got the Boston Strangler there, whether or not you're hoping for a spanking is immaterial.

I dunno. It's a delicate balance.

It really is. And this speaks directly to my original point. I think a pyl is much better off watching and "reading" how the PYL handles this delicate balance, rather than setting up hoops for the PYL.

I think a pyl is much better off making a judgment based on what the PYL has been observed to do on his/her own, rather than making a judgment based on how well the PYL jumped through the hoop.

If a pyl sets up hoops and yardsticks I think they often stand to turn off the PYL most likely to give them what they want.

The concept of fairness, quid pro quo and earning rewards is not one that attracts me.

Exactly. Indeed, I would go further and say that it is antithetical to d/s.

Which, of course, is back to what I originally said.

I think we should all be cautious about embracing self contradictions that set us up to fail.

 

[subbie_333]

Read the poster just above. That writer did not have the problem you describe.

Are you rushing things? Gawd! BDSM does not by definition involve "putting your life into someone else's hands" any more than a vanilla affair. I mean, going home with someone is going home with someone. Inviting someone into your home is inviting someone into your home. A hotel room is a hotel room. I mean.... if you've got the Boston Strangler there, whether or not you're hoping for a spanking is immaterial.

i think you are missing her point. If a pyl enters a relationship to the point where their play involves the PYL physically restraining the pyl, then, yes the pyl is literally putting their life in the hands of the PYL. The pyl has the right to know and demand that the PYL knows what the hell they are doing. We are talking about the risk of physical injury (and even death), as well as mental and emotional damage. Making a PYL go through "the hoop" of understanding what a safeword is and complying with the safeword is essential. Vanilla relationships are not the same, nor is the example of having a serial killer in the same room with you.

 

[subbie_333]

That's what I'm talkin' about. But I see it as bigger than that. Is she setting herself up to fail? Is the PYL who does jump through those hoops showing himself to be the kind of PYL who will fulfill her needs as a pyl throughout the relationship? I gotta say it seems unlikely.

Again, you may be talking about two different situations as far as trust. If the issue is the pyl determining if the PYL is trustworthy *before* entering a relationship, then, certainly the pyl has the right to see proof. Whether they do it through observation or through "hoops" as you say is a different discussion. And, once a relationship is established, proving trust and jumping through hoops is still another discussion. Which are we discussing here?

 

[Netzach]

What kind of "hoops" are we talking about?

I want a concrete example.

The times I've walked away and left someone doubting my capabilities have almost always every time been because someone's pushing me to punish them or pushing me to do something I consider higher risk than I want to, egging on the hardcore behavior.

The complete lack of understanding being that the more I love you, the more I would marry you and adopt small foreign children with you, the more I will be willing to hurt you. Duh.

As though this trust thing is completely unilateral. Nothing makes me feel more naked, more terrified, than doing the kinds of things I want to *to* someone else.

 

[subbie_333]

Exactly. Indeed, I would go further and say that it is antithetical to d/s.

Which, of course, is back to what I originally said.

I think we should all be cautious about embracing self contradictions that set us up to fail.

To me, the leap in logic between these three statements is difficult to comprehend. Certainly one can argue that in a D/s relationship that having the pyl make the PYL jump through hoops before continuing the relationship is contrary to the concepts of submission. Your original post was a bit esoteric, so, perhaps you could go back and make that a bit more clear. And, of course, we don't want to fail, but, i'm not sure how you are able to tie all this together so nice and tidy, especially since i'm not so sure we all agree on what we are talking about.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Trust is earned through time and observation.

By comparison between words and deeds.

Does your partner DO what s/he says s/he will do? Does your partner treat other people with respect and civility? Do they meet their family and social obligations? Are they genuine in their interest or only playing games? Are they well educated about this lifestyle or learning about it, or are they paying it lip service?

Is your partner a person of integrity and character, are they honest? Honorable?

Are they worth trusting?

For someone to earn your trust you don't need to set up hoops, you just need to take time to learn who they are as a person. And brothers and sisters, it works BOTH WAYS. A submissive or slave who can't be trusted is just as worthless as a Dominant who can't.

'Nuff said.

 

[ataxia.girl]

i think there is an undercurrent theme here as well. Some D's seem to look at themselves like a Hunter in search of prey and are quite willing to go to certain lengths for prey they want to capture. Other D's do not seem to see themselves in this light at all. They want the sub to come to them and demonstrate to them their worthiness.

i don't think there is anything wrong with either paradigm but i do think it exists. For me personally i want to be taken and this usually means the D has to be pretty flexible in their approach until i've decided to formally submit and am theirs.

i get quite a few emails from prospective D's that open with things like if you prove such and such i will consider taking you on as my sub. That approach does absolutely nothing for me. Maybe other subs like that attitude, i don't. The guy who takes time, gets to know me, then sort of sneaks into my heart before i know what's happening. That's the one i wait for and once i'm his, i'm his. i think i need this because i want to know he can handle me if\when i let go. i am not at ease with my own ability to consistently submit day in, day out over a long period so i need to know he is going to be able to deal with that creatively and help me back where i want to be. The guys telling me i have to prove i am submissive the same time they say hello just don't give me that secure feeling they are going to be able to deal with my varied moods and i want that peace of mind. i don't want to hear "you lied, you said you were submissive" the first time i throw a tantrum or even just say something smarter than them. i want them to know up front what it is they are getting before they decide to claim me.

i tend to be in the camp of subs who wants to be pursued, captured, claimed, taken, tamed etc. i do not apply for service on bended knee and hope i am accepted. i have asked prospective D's to read my thoughts on BDSM and respond. i want to know that they are interested enough and have the attention span to read about my ideas and are articulate enough to respond. This tends to weed out the lazy sex addicts on the BDSM personal websites. The only other hoop is sort of built in. They have to pursue me. i may glance around and show i'm interested but after that its really up to them.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Courting is the same in "bdsm" as it is in "real life". It always seems that people who fantasize about subs "applying" to them just lack game.

 

[ataxia.girl]

Courting is the same in "bdsm" as it is in "real life". It always seems that people who fantasize about subs "applying" to them just lack game.

i kinda wonder if this isn't also just a male\female thing too. Maybe i'm mistaken but my stereotypical idea of FDom\msub is the msub applying to serve the FDom whereas MDom\fsub seems to be the exact opposite for the most part.

i would love to hear from anyone who actually knows what they are talking about as i am speaking from my very traditional, male pursues female, experience. i grew up not being allowed to ever call boys or ask them out. Good girls waited for boys to ask them.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Not bragging, just God's honest truth here. At this stage in my life I don't have to hunt for submissives or play partners, they let me know they are interested in playing with me. If deeper interest/romance/feelings/ etc develop it's a mutual thing. I have loved slaves in the past, been in love with one... There is a difference.

The in love thing does change the dynamic some. In some ways it absolutely deepened my commitment to insuring her needs were taken care of, that I was more responsible for, and to her. And she to me. I did not have any difficulty keeping the intensity of our play at the level it was before I fell in love with her, but my inner Boy Scout made damn sure the inner Sadist didn't cross the line into unsafe play or injury to her...

 

[subbie_333]

i kinda wonder if this isn't also just a male\female thing too. Maybe i'm mistaken but my stereotypical idea of FDom\msub is the msub applying to serve the FDom whereas MDom\fsub seems to be the exact opposite for the most part.

i would love to hear from anyone who actually knows what they are talking about as i am speaking from my very traditional, male pursues female, experience. i grew up not being allowed to ever call boys or ask them out. Good girls waited for boys to ask them.

In my experience, most female dominants seem to fit into two major categories.

The first is the "come to Me all you worms and I will decide if you are worthy to serve Me". They seem to interested in collecting subs and generally are not really interested in them as people. They look at BDSM relationships as a way to get what They want and assume (generally correctly) that there are enough male submissives who can fill the need (so that They can discard those subs that no longer do what They want). Some seek a vanilla lover separate from Their BDSM activities.

The second major type of female dominant is the type that is more interested in the submissive male as a person, and, choose those that are more compatible with Them. They are more interested in making sure that the needs of both the PYL and pyl are met. They are more likely to approach a male, usually after observing them for awhile (sometimes unseen from a distance away). They are a lot more monogamous than the first type, and, look at the relationship being better because of familiarity and better matching of kinks.

Many times the first type will "mature" into the second type as They get tired of having to deal with somewhat mismatched kinks, and, desire to "settle down". i guess the female version of sowing Their wild oats.

Another aspect of why the FDom/msub dynamic is different from the MDom/fsub is because of pure number of people in each individual category. A lot of times vanilla sociology and economics (supply and demand, etc.) apply to BDSM as well. A topic for another discussion is how much testosterone in females affects all of this.

 

[cherokee_dove]

Read the poster just above. That writer did not have the problem you describe.

Are you rushing things? Gawd! BDSM does not by definition involve "putting your life into someone else's hands" any more than a vanilla affair. I mean, going home with someone is going home with someone. Inviting someone into your home is inviting someone into your home. A hotel room is a hotel room. I mean.... if you've got the Boston Strangler there, whether or not you're hoping for a spanking is immaterial.

No, you are misunderstanding what i said.

In your first posting, you mentioned people such as a salesman, the phone company, a stupid driver who can't drive straight.

Ok, for those people; i wouldn't give a rats ass if they had earned my trust or not. They are just people in every day life that is not BDSM related.

i have no clue what you mean by rushing things, because i wouldn't just jump into bed with those people! For crying out loud, get real!

And YES, BDSM can involve putting your life into someone else's hands; even more than a "vanilla" relationship.

Because in a "vanilla" relationship, there is not going to be the starting of consensual play whereby the submissive is tied up, gagged, and whipped and spanked. And say the Dom involved decides to bring in others to play with the sub, which was consensual; and every thing was going ok at that point; and then He had to take an emergency phone call.

And then if that submissive is gagged, then the other players decide "Well, while the cat's away, the mice will play" and start in on the heavier whips, knives, etc...things the submissive and her Dom know is a hard limit to her; that puts her at a severe risk of physical and mental abuse, injury, or death!

To have the Dom "earn" the trust, she would have to know 110%; that He would call a temporary stop and have every other player step back while He took that call. Since He was the one who gagged her, expecting to be there the whole time.

And i don't know about you, but i do know that i would take the time before starting into a relationship; BDSM or "vanilla" to get to know the person first!

i sure as hell would not be going to some side of the road hotel with the BOSTON STRANGLER!

 

[ataxia.girl]

i want to know what the "hoops" are these subs are asking D's to jump through. i tend to oscillate between being really compliant up front or being really stubborn and cagey but that generally comes out from them asking for things from me, not the other way around.

 

[Netzach]

i kinda wonder if this isn't also just a male\female thing too. Maybe i'm mistaken but my stereotypical idea of FDom\msub is the msub applying to serve the FDom whereas MDom\fsub seems to be the exact opposite for the most part.

i would love to hear from anyone who actually knows what they are talking about as i am speaking from my very traditional, male pursues female, experience. i grew up not being allowed to ever call boys or ask them out. Good girls waited for boys to ask them.

I pretty much sit back, observe, and make a move when interested and when there's an opening, when I know I'm being courted in some fashion. With boys or with girls, pretty much the same for me. Never entirely passive, but not very good at leaping forward and introducing myself. The people who garner my interest are simply interesting. The girls have to be a bit obvious, too, because I'm the world's most obtuse lesbian, I have shit sense of interest/cue except for shy geeky butches who are just boys with vaginas.