Kaya wrote this post today. And, as I’m practically having an affair with her blog, I became wrapped up in thinking about MY view on the situation/idea she presented.
I attempted to comment.
After over eleven hundred words, I decided I had failed.
Me and concise? We just don’t get along. (As it is, I have nearly 700 words sitting in a Word document that used to belong to this post. I cut them with much distress.)
SO… If you want this post to make a shred of sense, I implore you to read her post first.
I am of two minds. One is concerning the idea of submission following abuse. The second is about the particular man in her post.
Submission Following Abuse
I believe a man, a good man, CAN dominate a woman who was previously abused in a manner that actually allows her to heal, and be strong and empowered. I do. I understand and condone a man seeking a woman he wants to dominate, and coming to love her enough, know her well enough, and being skilled enough to allow her to find a cleansed emotional experience coming from an activity similar to one she used to associate with something profoundly negative.
But, in my experience… (And, because I despise people asserting false authority… My experience is seeing a dozen different therapists to deal with my past, and a bachelor’s degree in psychology from a very respected university. These things neither make me an expert, nor someone you should even listen to at all. But, that’s what I mean by “my experience.”)
Anyway, in my experience, while people may go back and forth with the issue of a larger number of abused women turning to BDSM, the fact of the emotional matter is that it is not a simple task to take an abused woman and let her grow as a human and blossom beneath domination. (Obviously, this is if she has not already found a complete personal path to healing, as many don’t for a long while.)
So… If she has lingering issues, hang-ups, perhaps even PTSD?
Is it harder to dominate/manipulate her in general? No. And I’d hazard that it’s probably easier.
Is it harder to dominate her in a beneficial, honest, good way? I believe so.
And, let me stop right here and say if you don’t think a dominant/submissive pairing should be beneficial to both partners? Well, you and I are not going to agree on this. And that’s cool; I’m just warning you that I DO think it should be a symbiotic relationship.
This Particular Guy
If he means he would like a woman who has been abused, but she feels things are resolved and she is absolved, and she’s moved to a healthy place? Okaaaaay, I guess. It still makes me uncomfortable for reasons I can’t put my finger on, but… But that’s just that’s NOT what I got out of his statement. I got that he has a two-point list which takes “sweeping generalization” to a WHOLE new level… “You need to seriously want a Dom. You were abused.”
Uh, wow.
If I were to give him the benefit of the doubt, I’d call his stance the result of severe naiveté. (Incidentally, GREAT quality in a dominant! *rolls eyes*)
But, truthfully, it comes across as blithe more than anything else.
And that attitude about abuse survivors leads me to believe he is not looking to walk the long, and potentially very rewarding road of healing and turning her patterns into rewarding service, but is looking to walk the easier, and far more sinister road of sick and simple domination. He just didn’t seem to think his mindset should be at all mitigated by the mental and emotional intricacies of someone who was harmed – he just plugged it as number two on his list, and said “good” when he heard someone was a victim.
I don’t like the way he talked. And not because I think the mindset of “it is totally possible to turn your abuse around, to harness your emotions and get something positive out of this while actively recovering” is wrong. It’s not! I mean, look at kaya, whose post was the impetus for mine. No, okay, sadly I don’t really “know” her, but from reading her words, and the occasional words from her Master, I firmly believe she is a shining example of this. She is success.
But the guy in that post? Well, he can continue to pretend he’s got some altruistic core (though, in reality, he doesn’t even bother trying to pretend that very hard)… But looking at his words, I call bullshit. Loud and clear, I call bullshit.
The fact that he has such black and white, simplistic thinking about it and the fact that he simply introduces this search for someone who was abused in what seems like the very beginning of a conversation worries me to no end. I’d run, long and hard, away from ANY man who had such a view.
Many, MANY men take advantage of women and their weaknesses. They lie to sleep with them and the prey on their insecurities to keep them. (I’m not saying women are angels – they’re not. I’m not saying all men do – they don’t. I’m just talking about some guys here, kay?) Many seek power and sex and elements of submission, and they will do nasty, horrible things to get those things, and they don’t care about the emotions of the women they leave in their wake. Come on, haven’t you all met guys like that? I have. I’ve watched friends, and myself, fall victim to them.
Well, this guy strikes me as someone who thinks he’s found a venue where this behavior is acceptable. So he thinks can foster his selfish, predator nature by actively selecting (by basically asking for a show of hands) people he views as weaker, injured prey.
I mean, okay, I’m going to stop and finish with this:
What if the conversation had been this, with my substitutions in ALLCAPS (and I have held back editing the atrocious grammar… I mean “If you’re on my list there should be for two reasons” ? WTF is that?)
Him: If you’re on my list there should be for two reasons:
Him: 1) you’re serious looking for a JOB
Him: 2) you have a history of FORCED CHILD LABOR in your past
Him: Which one is it..?
Me: both in a way
Him: Good…
Me: why is that good?
Him: I like when an EMPLOYEE has a history of FORCED CHILD LABOR.
Me: why is that?
Him: it turns her into a better WORKER..especially of she grew up to crave the sensations (not the emotions) what was done to her before.
Me: interesting
Him: and truthful..
Me: i’d like you to elaborate. Prefering PEOPLE WHO WERE FORCED INTO CHILD LABOR makes you seem a predator on broken PEOPLE. Those who haven’t healed.
Him: a predator..or perhaps makes me a BOSS who understands an EMPLOYEE who embraces the fact she has a need/urge to empower herself through something she now finds essential.Him: replace the word FORCED CHILD LABOR by “early JOB TRAINING” and it changes the context completely.
Me: FORCED CHILD LABOR is NOT early JOB TRAINING.Him: nonethless.. it change your WORK ETHIC completely.
Me: my WORK ETHIC was changed even before the FORCED CHILD LABORHim: THE BENEFITS OF A GOOD BOSS can only be shown nowadays through very distinct mechanisms
Him: THE BENEFITS OF A GOOD BOSS then can only be shown through the dynamics of guidance, discipline and punishment. Wouldn’t that be true..?
Me: no, THE BENEFITS OF A GOOD BOSS can be shown through many waysHim: Which one of them is still inside your head when you lay at night and crave GETTING A JOB..?
Okay. Honestly. Take a minute and think what your reaction would be if you heard this. Are we still going to defend his views? Or would we be like “Yikes, he’s one selfish, sick puppy.” If a boss was looking for a worker, and he decided a good work ethic is best based on illegal, brutal, harmful treatment in the past? And seeks out only victims of that abuse? Are we really thinking, given the way the idea was presented, that it’s anything less than exploitation of abuse?
Are we REALLY shrugging and say, “Yeah, well, he’s not doing anything wrong! It could be a GOOD experience for the worker!” Or that “No one who was a child-laborer and isn’t over the emotional issues has any business getting a job anyway.”
Well, yeah, okay. It MIGHT be a good experience, eventually, if done right. And I think these people would be able to handle a job, if it was the right one.
I just don’t think I could change my opinion that there is a difference… A difference between: A man looking for a good worker, and either knows or discovers the employee was involved in the horrors of forced child labor, and then deals with it, and HELPS her and finds a way to make the experience work to his benefit AND aid in her healing… And a man who wanders around looking specifically for child-laborers because he thinks they universally make better employees. It simply appears that he cares MUCH more about some fictionalized, nutty, generalized personal belief and he has not a shred of real experience. In my head, that’s red flag for further abuse. He’s creeeeepy.
In short (ha):
Can a formerly abused woman be a good submissive and a great servant? Can her past patterns be re-associated with positive things? Absolutely! NO ONE is a sick fuck for thinking that result is possible, good, and that in the end, the effects of abuse can even be viewed in a really good, positive light. And rock on for anyone who accomplishes that.
Is there something wrong with someone who specifically and solely seeks out an abuse victim in that cavalier, generalized, selfish manner? Yep. I think so. I think he hasn’t got a clue what he’s talking about. Avoid, avoid, avoid the guy with the giant head who clearly thinks he’s WAY awesomer and worldly than he really is.
EDITED TO ADD: Because I absolutely, categorically, CANNOT shut up… Something I’m curious about after reading some of the comments in kaya’s blog… The comments about the chocolate ice cream, the blow-jobs, the skills acquired as a result of abuse… I don’t delude myself into think everyone will agree with me. So, to the people who would say "yep, it IS just early job training!" – Do you think a person who was NOT abused cannot achieve the same level of skill as someone who was? I guess if someone does think that, I can see where the "need" for an abuse survivor would come into play… But I don’t think that’s the case. I think a pure desire to serve, not spurred by a history of abuse and associations with service/domination, can drive someone to reach the same levels of service. I can plainly see how abuse can play into desires, just with the emotions originally backwards. And if that’s part of healing, to reverse the emotional associations, to use the skills in a loving relationship you actually benefit from, rock on. I don’t think that’s wrong. I just also don’t think it’s necessary or universally beneficial, as this dominant seems to think it is…
I think what it comes down to is a lazy ass duminant who is looking for someone whose spirit has already been broken. He’s looking for the “easy” route, which isn’t there. He gives NO impression of wanting to help these women on their journey of recovery, only of wanting to exploit their past history for his own benefit. Is he specifically doing anything wrong by looking for them? No, I guess not. But I think that any that go to him and fall for his lines will walk away far more damaged than they went in. Because I highly doubt that the relationship would be in any way a “healthy” BDSM relationship. So in the long run, I think he’s adding to their already sad history of abuse. Only his abuse is more of the emotional/manipulative sort. Hey, if that’s what the sub/slave is looking for, then that’s her decision. I don’t think he’s dangerous to the majority of the women out there, because hopefully their “duminant radar” goes off immediately. But to those that are still hurting, and nowhere near healed? I think he does pose a danger to them, for the simple fact that he certainly doesn’t seem to have many dom-like qualities to him, so they’d essentially be putting themselves into a situation where the abuse is “legitimate/agreed upon/authorized” with little or none of the benefits that a slave/sub SHOULD get from a qualified, intelligent dominant.
At least I think that’s what I meant.
Reply
Chloe Reply:
February 6th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Slightly random… But, I sometimes think I’d like to do some undercover work, luring dominants into conversation with me, and then expounding upon the “things to avoid” I find in their words…
But then I realize I wouldn’t get more than six words into conversation with the majority of them. I’m the BIGGEST snot when it comes to intelligence in a dominant. Seriously, I’m a complete and utter jerk. Antonio is much smarter than I am, and it really just HAS to be that way. I need to be outdone, physically and mentally. If I were on the market, and any man who was looking to snag me ever said, “If you’re on my list there should be for two reasons,” I would instantly dissolve into giggles…
And poke at them with glee like they were a brain damaged slug.
And probably inquire as to whether or not they slept through third grade.
And then say something like, “S’cuse me, but did you know, in 48 states, people as stupid as you are can be declared legally dead?”
And then… Well, you get the idea. I’m a horrendous bitch.
Reply
This is one area where I think you and I differ to a pretty huge degree when it comes to bdsm theories and practices.
I *don’t* think that doms are under any obligation to be healers. To be the person who always has the subs best interest at heart, whose job it is to guide and teach and whatever else it is they say.
I think that’s so much hokey bullshit..lol.
Which is where I would disagree with your example, too. The boss and child labor one? See, a boss IS obligated to be certain things and follow certain laws. A dom isn’t.
Obviously a dom *should* be whatever it is that the submissive in question needs and wants – and a vast majority of them *are* looking for the sort that creates that safe, secure atmosphere in which they are encouraged to grow and thrive and be the best darn-tootin’ sub they can be!
But not all. Not me. Definitely not me.
Gah. I have to stop here because I absolutely cannot concentrate with Master sitting behind me…lol. Idn’t that a bitch? I’ll be back though.
Lemme say this real quick though – about the skills and such. No, I don’t think that someone who hasn’t been abused can’t reach that same skill level. Not at all. And, really, I think listing skills (especially sexual skills) is further convoluting the topic because I doubt very much that guy was even talking about sex skills. (and yeah, I know I convoluted my own post with the bj thing. Spank me! – please?
)
But lets just say he is talking specifically about a mindset that commonly occurs among abuse victims, an easier acceptance of finding love in alternative methods. Again, that is something that a submissive who hasn’t been abused can/will do also – but maybe it’s a different process. I don’t know for sure, I can’t say because my experience is only having been abused. But it makes sense that what a child is taught comes *easier* to them as an adult in comparison to an adult who is only just learning it. And the whole “easier” thing goes back to him being a lazy dom who prefers women who have already accepted and made peace with the fact that they accept love through differing methods than your average non-abused woman.
I just dont think he’s a predator. At all. Or abusive. I don’t get that impression even a little bit. Exploitive perhaps – selfish, lazy, yes yes yes. All of which are “acceptable” places for a dom to come from. I think so anyway.
To say otherwise, to say that a dom has to or should come from a healthy, more altruistic standpoint, heads down that slippery slope of “one true wayism”.
Maybe.
I’ll be back later..lol
Reply
Chloe Reply:
February 7th, 2009 at 12:08 am
*spanks you*
~Chloe
P.S. – Wait, was there something else in your comment other than a spanking request? By golly, there was. Strange how I went straight for that.
I LOVE having an intelligent person disagree with me. I sometimes think it comes across as if I (and other bloggers) have a “agree or GTFO” mentality. I definitely don’t. I like to image everything I say is prefaced with “How Chloe Sees the World,” and I fear it may seem it’s prefaced with “How Chloe Thinks the World Should Be.” It ain’t.
Yes, I can see how the skills thing was a convolution – an interesting one, but still. I guess it seemed a little like “Obviously someone would prefer this, it’s WAY better this way!” and I was wondering if that was actually the mindset.
I think, in a general sense, in order for any relationship to be beneficial, both parties have to get something good out of it, both in the short run and the long run. (But not necessarily both in a given situation, but at least one, and a balance of both overall.) For ME, I might hate, loathe, and detest certain activities or situations. I have had times where I’ve decided, without a single question in my mind, that Antonio is “abusing” his power and doing me harm. He’s completely ignoring what his actions, orders, etc. are doing to me, ignoring my pain and anguish and mental turmoil. He’s not hurting me, he’s harming me, dammit. And I’m all “OMFG, no!” But… Obviously… Not really. Because I’m not running for the door. Or even if I am, I turn the hell around. I sit and wallow in my misery (well, I more “thrash wildly” in it) and in my conviction that he doesn’t give a shit if I live or die, stay with him or leave… And then I have to force myself out of it. Because, even in those “He doesn’t care at all about my welfare” moments, buried so deep I sometimes can’t even see that it is the force driving my actions, I still want to do what he wants me to do, I want to be what he wants me to be, feel what he wants me to feel… Even if it goes against everything I’ve got churning in my head and heart.
And for me, that practice is beneficial. Having to drag myself out of my own way, and shape the fuck up, without a guiding hand, kindness, reassurance, or anything, makes me ultimately feel GOOD. I am utterly convinced I HATE it in the moment, and I swear on everything I hold dear I am going to fail and this is The Fucking End… But then it isn’t. And I’m all blissful and happy and at peace for having surrendered the part of my soul it took to get where I am. I don’t see it as an abuse or a sacrifice, and I think others might. (Granted, I would probably lose my friggin’ mind if this were a daily occurrence, but yanno.)
I admit, I might be totally naive, when I’m sitting there after the fact thinking it’s part of some master plan he has – that he knew it was going to be okay and that I “wanted” it. Maybe he really DOESN’T give a shit. (Personally, I don’t care if it is a false sense of security I’ve created for myself. I thoroughly enjoy my delusions!)
So, I don’t think I meant to imply that a dom has to act, at all times, as someone who is always looking out for his submissive’s needs ahead of his own. That seems very counterproductive to me. I know I’d hate it if Antonio didn’t make me want to curl up and die every once in a while. I’d feel too… In control or something. But I know it works for some people, and that’s awesome too.
But I do think, for any relationship (and I mean any – family, friends, lovers) to be successful in the long run, there has to be a building up, a strengthening, a mutualism of sorts. I don’t really care how people come around to that. So I don’t think any dominant HAS to heal anyone. Like you said, yes, there should be a matching of needs between a dominant and submissive. So, yes, to each his own. I really don’t want to sound like I’m against that. I’m not. There is NO one true way, not at all. I just do think an unhealed person being exploited isn’t going to thrive, or even end up being all that wonderful of a servant, necessarily. It seemed an insane generalization for him to make. An uneducated, unpracticed, inexperienced generalization. I’d have written the guy off as a loser, or one who was in for a potential world of frustration. He might luck out and get someone well-matched based on his abuse requirement (er, desire? I wasn’t entirely clear how much he “liked” it in a submissive – it seemed pretty imperative.) But, he might also do some serious damage. And, okay, if someone who would be damaged by that enters into it, on her head be it. But someone who strikes me as inexperienced, and seeking something as indefinite as “an abused woman” and making sweeping generalizations about it? I’d never be able to take him seriously in ANY situation, and I don’t know how anyone else ever would. To me it’s just a flashing “moron” sign, which usually does not accompany the kind of person I could submit to. (Obviously, that’s just me. Other people might be tripping over themselves to fall at his feet.) I guess it was more that HE seemed stupid and predatory, rather than the idea seeming stupid and predatory.
(For some reason, I feel like I could talk about this forever, and still not be 100% clear on my own opinion. I feel delightfully confused!)
And now I can’t concentrate because I’m hung up thinking about whether this is something someone really “learns.” How you said… “it makes sense that what a child is taught comes *easier* to them as an adult in comparison to an adult who is only just learning it.” I guess I never thought of myself as an adult learning anything, OR as someone who was abused in any way and thus has some early-learning done. I thought of myself as a human with an intrinsic desire, honing the practice of listening to her instincts while breaking down some seriously shitty barriers I developed growing up. If I had any kind of clear understanding about what my past did to me and my present, I might be more adept at answering that. I’m just not. I’ve never taken the time to fully think it through. (My mother, on the other hand, even knowing nothing about my relationship dynamic, has kindly supplied me with self-help CDs about being and escaping being codependent, apparently because of my alcoholic father… Go figure. Thanks, Mom.)
I am SO going to shut up now. It’s past midnight. Oh, and also, I’m at work. Whoops!
Reply
I am a masochist with childhood abuse (molestation) and was raped as an adult by someone with authority over me. I have PTSD and are they all connected? yes in a way but I was a masochist before the childhood abuse and rape. I have had therapy and sorted out the differences. Triggers that come from the PTSD are completely different then the things that are connected to my sexual relationships. At this point in my life I can seperate those. Perhaps this Dom doesn’t understand the different or how to proceed in Dominating someone who has these issues.
For instance – triggers for my PTSD include pillows over my head or a hood. I can be tied down by rope and that turns me on but a hood or suffocating is a trigger to the rape.
You can’t work through that without serious risk of injury to the psyche and usually a partner who you haven’t been with for years who understands it cant help you either.
They can work around those issues but in order to do that they have to know the entire story and what the triggers are.
This man is foolish to think he can figure it out with a online forum or private message – he is not a smart Dom and yes, like I said on Kayay’s site LAZY – emotionally LAZY.
Reply
Chloe Reply:
February 7th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Your gravatar is a bum! Awesome!
Thank you for sharing that about yourself, really. And, well put. I too got the “moron” impression from him. Sometimes, I think my education in psychology leads me to make things overcomplicated. (And by “I think” I mean “Antonio tells me” but, yanno.) But sometimes I think not.
Reply
I really liked your analogy. Such a great parallel! I thought you were very concise for a topic with a lot of depth.
kaya, I understand your position that Doms aren’t required to be altruistic–or even be interested in human rights like people expect employers to be. Well, no one expects employers to be altruistic actually but they are required by law to honor human rights and human rights watch do groups will red flag bad employers to the government.
But that kinda happens with relationship abuse too. It’s not going to be monitored so easily but human rights are human rights. They are not *inherent* but a choice that our government has decided to make part of the constitution. I think that is why consent and choice are so essential in BDSM-related experiences. I think it is hard to show consent when you have Doms seeking out weaker women (and anyone seeking abused women is seeking out someone who has been emotionally and psychologically injured).
That is just my opinion but your opinion is coming from a place where you are cared for and know it.
Reply
Chloe Reply:
February 11th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
I’m framing your comment, btw. You said I was CONCISE. I don’t think that’s ever happened before. Like, ever.
Thank you! And thank you for a wonderful comment. It’s difficult to remove the theory of slavery from the reality of laws and the foundations of ethics. It’s a messy bit of conversation, but an interesting one.
Reply
Puppy – that is true. I am cared for and naturally my thoughts on it are skewed in that direction. It’s hard (for me anyway) to come at something and not pull only from my own experiences. But since I recognize that about myself, I don’t consider myself a “voice of authority” on anything. Good thing, eh? Could you imagine the world I’d create if I could?? Heh.
Chloe – I just wanted to address what you said about “learned” skills real quick. Learned is most certainly not the best word, but I’m not sure what is, to be honest.
I don’t know that anyone can dispute the evidence of the lingering effects of child abuse on adults – and if not abuse to the child itself in it’s classic definition, then the abuse perhaps, of power. From the cycle of abuse (abused children often grow up to be abusers) to co-dependency issues (a child of an alcoholic is more likely to marry, and put up with, an alcoholic spouse).
There is an ease of acceptance that happens to these adult children – whether that makes it a learned event or whatever, it can’t be denied. There are always exceptions to the rule, of course. Some children of alcoholics grow up to be teetotalers, won’t have anything to do with anyone else who drinks (and in some ways, isn’t that also an almost unhealthy response to childhood “trauma”? especially if they can’t separate appropriate drinkers from alcoholics?)
It’s that easy acceptance that I mean when I say “learned in childhood”. Just as not all children of alcoholics become alcoholics or marry alcoholics, and not all alcoholics have a childhood history surrounded by alcohol, there is enough of a connection to childhood experiences that counselors and researchers look for it.
So, I absolutely do believe that someone like you and I who have a history of abuse and have grown up to be interested in the various aspects of bdsm have, in some manner, been easier to dom specifically because we already possess that “ease of acceptance”.
Now, as I was discussing this with Master, he kept pointing to me “but cunt, you are NOT easy to control.” (like, he kept repeating that. A lot. Do you think he was trying to tell me something? teehee) and so we had to discuss the difference between domming and controlling. I am not easy to control. I freely admit that. (well I am NOW, easiER anyway) But even he had to admit there are things that were just easier to do, easier for me to accept (in comparison to his past D/s relationships) because I was already comfortable with them, already felt love by alternative methods.
So.. yeah. Totally lost my train of thought there. Ummmm.. I guess that’s my cue to stfu, huh? lol.
Reply
Chloe Reply:
February 11th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
You know… I had this massive (and, for argument’s sake, let’s assume brilliant) idea when I read this the first time… Something about the learned behaviors. It’s TOTALLY left my brain though. Dammit.
Though, I say with conviction that I’m sure your Master was simply giving himself a compliment when he was repeating that you are not easy to control. *nods* He was… Uh… Saying how very capable he is because he can/does control you. I’m sure it was only mildly about you, really more about him… Mmhmm, yep.
Reply
Hello! I found your site through a comment on Kaya’s blog. I just wanted to say that I’m glad that I stumbled across it! In the few posts that I’ve read so far I couldn’t help but smile. I love the way you write.
Reply
Chloe Reply:
February 10th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Thank you, Coyote’s Kitten! Commenting in kaya’s blog is like… Well, I should pay for the privilege, I think. It’s practically like advertising…
Glad I made you smile. Knowing that made ME smile!
Reply
First….great posting, and great debate in the comments. There will always be so many ways of looking at this and its inevitable I think that we all do so from the frame of reference of our own personal pictures.
For me, your line, ‘looking to walk the long, and potentially very rewarding road of healing and turning her patterns into rewarding service’ struck deeply. Neither M or I were looking for that when we entered into our relationship, we came to that road together about a year in and naturally, and its been, I believe, beneficial in taking both his dominance and my submission to a level we couldn’t have imagined it could when we first met. For that, I will always be most grateful. I learned I didn’t need him to heal me, I just needed him to be the strong foundation to allow me to do my own work. Making my past negative responses and patterns part of my service to him has very much been a part of that.
love and hugs xxx
Reply
Chloe Reply:
February 11th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
You saying “I didn’t need him to heal me” reminded me (though it may be wildly off-topic)… I caught myself thinking today, that almost every good thing I do stems from inside me… No matter how owned or loved I am, no matter how slave-like I feel, I have to plant my own seeds of change. If I’m bent on being self-destructive, there is little Antonio can do to “force” a better mentality on me… But serving him, and letting him guide me? That’s how my little seeds of change are nurtured, fed, and allowed to grow. I mean, sometimes he can alter my perceptions and thoughts and motivations, but it’s not through brute force. He just… Gets in my head. And sometimes I think I’m just a passive vessel, but usually I know I really am involved, responsible, and it IS on my shoulders to take a hand in correcting myself. It’s an interesting little joint effort we’ve got going on.
Reply