Hello Molly! Great to have you here. I have really enjoyed your book and the other books Mystic Rose puts out. I'm trying to collect the whole set :)

I have read that you are or at least were submissive and your co-author and Dom, Phillip Miller passed away in 1996. Sorry to hear that :( As a slave (Hello Master & Mrs Master!) and submissive female in the BDSM scene I know how guys, well het male doms, can be about single femsubs. I guess it's the same as how vanilla society in general can be so patronizing to women, it just irritates the heck out of me sometimes. Does your rep as well-known author and publisher Molly Devon keep the horndogs away or do you have to use a stick? On the other hand, maybe Dom guys are turned off by the powerful author aura? I get a vicarious thrill imagining that you have your pick of wonderful Dominant play partners but then, starfuckers give me the creeps. So how's it work for you?

Will's merry ketzele,
       jen

I don't even know where to begin on this one. My celebraty has had mostly a negative effect on my "lovelife". Once I was in a dungeon involved in some heavy roleplay on my knees infront of a dom. In walks someone who recognized me.

"Molly Devon!!! May I have your autograph!

Gone was the mood, the scene... shortly the Dom.

Also I have been spoiled by the quality of play I have enjoyed with some of the best players around.

I have little trouble getting people to scene with, but to find a serious relationship or love interest? Maybe not meant to be in this lifetime. I'm also very unhappy with the seperation of sex from BDSM. I'm not interested in a "playpartner" I'm seeking a dominant lover who incorporates SM.

Molly,
Thanks for answering my intrusive personal questions :) I hope you didn't give that wanker an autograph!

> I'm also very unhappy with the seperation of sex from BDSM.

I was thinking about that statement of yours, because on the one hand I look at the results of our current poll which was inspired in part by that very question. The poll results so far indicate that over 2/3 of the respondents DO mix sex and BDSM and 80% find BDSM sexually exciting. Heaven knows my dominant, sadistic, beloved Master often fucks me to a faretheewell. :)

But none of my other BDSM partners mixed sex and BDSM at all. My first master didn't ever even kiss me. He was all about service and SM play but no sex. When I've played with other more casual partners, sex never came up at all. Of course play at clubs can't involve sex, except I guess at swinger clubs. Hmm. Hey! If swinger clubs can get away with it, why can't our local dungeon? Odd, I'd never thought to ponder that question before.

I haven't been in the scene that long, really only since 97, well and in college back in 88-91 when a friend ran a campus SM support group but I was too virginal back then to do anything except vibrate in repression and desire. From what I did see back then, it was kind of assumed that SM was a form of sex. I remember one person on asb claiming that SM wasn't sexual for her and it being a very controversial statement. Now such a statement is common and almost treated as a sign of virtue, or so it seems to me. So did something change? Molly, do you have a theory?

I guess the poll results indicate that the readership of this board is different than the population of SMers in general. I'm not surprised of course :) I think we've got a great dynamic here on Gloria's message boards.

ketzele (Molly),

I also think that it has a lot to do with the fact that many respondents are involved in some form of long-term relationship.

If the majority were just 'scening' without SOs, I believe the results would have gone in the opposite direction.

Maybe the real input here is that the respondents are mostly 'evolved' (long term, mature, confident) and are in committed relationships and willing to communicate on the boards because of that.

molly, ketzele,

To me, and I have written this many, many times, and totally believe and espose the idea that BDSM IS SEX. In my life, the two are inseparable partners.

I have one caveat here, however, and that is "scening" in public with individuals with whom I have no "real" relationship other than topping to their bottom. In the public dungeons in which I play, penetrative sex is forbidden, generally, and therefore negotiations generally do not include sexual acts. Like ketzele, I do sometimes also wonder why this is "permissible" in "swingers" venues and forbidden to us. But, if you think I'm not getting a "sexual" charge from torturing a nipple or gently teasing a clit with one of my very soft "pussy" floggers, you have another "think" coming.

I am, however, in a committed relationship and SEX is part and parcel of every "scene" we have at home. In that relationship I do not have any interest, like Molly, in a "play partner". I want a submissive lover who enjoys SM. I was lucky to find this in my janiece.

Knyghtflyher

Whoa!

Some of us don't currently have the luxury of long-term partners (and wish we did...)

Some of us who are single and like to play don't really WANT to take everyone we have a good time playing with home with us. Some of us have made choices about the risks of casual SM that are not the same choices we've made about the risks of casual sex.

I would not want the dungeons I play in to turn into swinger parties, and have people look at me funny because I'm not fucking every bottom I play with.

:-X

And point #2: Why is intercourse seen by so many people as THE ULTIMATE erotic experience? It's like, if sex didn't happen, an SM experience is somehow not sexual "enough". Why is this? Why does SM have to be some kind of foreplay, and not worthwhile in itself? I just don't get that. Hell, one of the things I like so much about SM is it's a way to be sexual *without* assuming that there's some Magical Endpoint that involves intercourse.

Also, I don't think people who do play casually are unevolved. Like I said, it depends on the person and the circumstances. For me personally -- yes, I'd much rather be in a relationship, but I don't think it's unevolved to enjoy playing. (Unless it's unevolved to be single...) Nor do I think it would be unevolved for someone to enjoy playing with someone other than zir steady partner.

There are so many reasons for the evolution seperating BDSM from sex. Some very good like aids.

Some not so good. One of the not so good reasons is the vanilfication of SM. Personally I think forced oral or a gangbang or a piss party is just as much a part of "leathersex" as a flogging. The attitude against "casual sex" is pretty much a part of the vanillification with which I'm not thrilled. Flogging being less intimate...is this a good thing? Risk your life by letting a virtually stranger tie you up and hit you, but don't want a cock inside you? This is a healthy thing? I'm not so certain. Now if if its not your kink don't do it. But in my mind slutting around sexually is no worse than playing around with multible partners in dungeons.

Molly,

How is someone "more vanilla" than someone else because she's not interested in casual sex? I just don't see it.

(And who said flogging's less intimate? Or is that your opinion?)

Let me ask you where the attitude against casual sex came from? Casual sex was pretty common in the old hellfire days. The first private parties I attended had almost as much fucking going on as flogging.

I don't think SM is foreplay, any more than oral sex is foreplay or masturbation is foreplay. To me it's a form of sexuality, as is genital intercourse, oral, anal, fisting, tongue-kissing, ear-stroking, belly-button tongueing, tickling, deep emotional intimacy, etc etc etc. Hell, to some people popping balloons is part of their sexuality. I would not want to restrict myself to expressing only a subset of my sexuality. I'm kind of uninhibited that way! ("She's a greedy slut" my dear Master has said, happily) I want to be able to satisfy my partner's desires any depraved way he or she wants and vice versa.

Vanillification, I think that's an interesting word. Makes a lot of sense to me! But it's not as interesting as the phrase "piss party", thanks Molly :)

Molly,

I don't think I have an attitude. I don't think casual sex is bad. I think it's something I've chosen not to have, and I wouldn't want to be in places where I'd be considered a wallflower or weird for not having it. I certainly would not mind being around it as long as I was not expected to be doing it too.

That doesn't mean I'm telling anyone else that what they do is bad.

I also disagree with the assumption that intercourse is the pinnacle of sexual experiences, or that all sexual activity eventually ought to lead to it... which is more the point I saw myself as making.

That's good. It is most important to find what works for you and do that thing. To be honest I can count the times I've actually had "genital" sex in the last 5 years on one hand, and have fingers left over. I don't think people should feel pressured to have sex. BUT I don't think people should feel its less legitimate either. And it seems to me the pressure now goes in that direction. Sorry, just my personal observation.

Trinity, Molly, et al,

Where or when did 'intercourse/penetrative sex' become synonymous with 'sex'?

When I say that, for me, most BDSM scenes involve sex, I'm saying that, at the very least, sexual organs come in to play, (not by themselves though, they've always been attached to something) and the be all and end all is only sometimes an orgasm, however it is ultimately achieved.

Sometimes its just floating, sometimes its prep for more later, sometimes just good healthy exercise that's fun and non-repetitious.

However, I don't limit the definition of 'sex' to just intercouse, and I certainly believe that if one's erogenous zones are being played with, it is 'sex'.

Molly,

I wasn't trying to say it was less legitimate. I can see where it might seem like I meant that, especially if you're often around people who act as though they know what's best for everyone, but it's not what I wa saying. Rather, I noticed that in this thread people seemed to be saying that not involving sex in one's SM is somehow incomplete or indicative of someone's not being serious, etc, and I wanted to say that although I'm sure this IS the case in many situations... it isn't in many others.

And yes, I do think there's pressure not to have sex, and I don't think it's a good thing. I just think it would be a similarly bad thing if it went the other way.

I guess my viewpoint my also be a reflection of the fact that the "starfucker" type in my case wants to play in public where people can see him playing with me. And has little interest beyond that.

This thread is so fascinating I have to jump in....

For me, good SM itself is sex. Boring SM (like watching two lifeless individuals do an unemotional spanking scene, or a bondage scene where the top is more interested in the way the ropes look than the way the sub feels in those ropes) doesn't do anything more for me than watching vanilla sex--i.e., it's *interesting* as a voyeur but it isn't exciting. Kind of like sitting at an outdoor cafe and watching the world pass by. (OK, a vastly more entertaining world *g*).

But good SM, i.e., intimate, deep, serious (and seriously playful at moments) is the kind of SM I like because it makes me wet to the knees, whether I'm participating or watching. And when I get that way, I generally want an orgasm. And since I can't cum from squeezing a squirming slaveboy's nipples, that usually means doing something else to cum. Personally I'm a great fan of masturbation but fucking and oral work just fine too :-)

My ideal SM partner is someone who makes me that wet, and who keeps me lightly aroused all the time. Think of it as the yin to the subbie's yang: you sub types like feeling that sexual hunger/helplessness going all the time, yes? Well this dom loves causing those emotions all the time. I love spending a day with a man, doing vanilla stuff, but constantly tormenting him in discreet little ways, so I can see the fear, terror, submission, embarrassment and etc. on his face and give myself non-stop sexual thrills. Sexual feelings make me feel alive.

Trin, to get back to your comments: here's the thing. For me the best SM is the kind that makes me hot. I can intellectually understand people who don't see SM as a sexual thing, nor want any sexual components to it; but emotionally I don't connect with that. Even if I choose *not* to have an orgasm (a choice I often make, since the SM in itself is what I'm really after), I *DO* want to be totally turned on. As much of the time as possible. :-)

Gloria

Molly, a separate but somewhat related question...

Do you find it hard to submit to men who aren't as intelligent/emotionally balanced and overall as competent or successful in life as you?

Glory, my dear Glory, you make me horny just reading your posts about what SM does for you. Even with me having the flu for several days now I got a little squirmy reading your last post....thank you for the refreshment!

love Kate

First attraction tends to be a viseral response. Sense of humor, confidence, competence (as seen when watching someone do a really hot scene) passion, intensity are all part of what goes into that attraction. When attracted my submissive buttons get pushed. Or perhaps its the reverse, as well; when my submissive buttons are pushed I get hot.

I remember the first evening watch Philip giving his girl a brutal caning (she was a painslut). Now even though I didn't (yet) enjoy pain. I said to myself "god he's terrifying. I MUST have him"!

But beyond a first play experience, I need to feel that there is something admirable. Some reason to reorder my existance around this other person. As far as intelligence parity isn't an issue, though bright is a requirement. Intensity and fire are absolutely a requirement.

<< For me, good SM itself is sex. >>

Glory,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's not that SM is nonsexual for me -- it's VERY sexual. In fact, I think the reason I'm able to divorce it from intercourse etc, is because to me, well -- topspace is MUCH more fulfilling to me than orgasm.

Orgasms are quite lovely things. I don't mean to say they're not. But topspace for me is about being in this really intense, highly sexual, state and staying there. Orgasms are just (quite) pleasant. Both are intense, yes, but topspace is different somehow.

I have trouble describing this, because as far as I know what I call my topspace is very different from the way others experience theirs. It's my mind and body... well... flying is already taken :) but.. something like that. The closest I've come to describing it well is "Imagine your clit drank four cups of coffee, all at once." A silly metaphor, but the clearest I can come up with. When I am in my headspace, I really do act as though I am on some stimulant -- talk fast, walk fast, run, etc. I buzz. Intensely. I've never really felt anything that compares to that -- the psychological feelings of power, coupled with the high. It's truly amazing.

(Maybe I've just always had piddly orgasms and don't realize it, though they've certainly seemed like they felt good... and I also think that it's possible for me to come from topping. It's never quite happened, but I've been DAMN close. Yes, SM does make me wet to the knees. :) Never said it didn't.)

Yes, it's very nice to combine the two -- I'm emphatically NOT denying that. But as old-fashioned and sexually un-adventurous as I might seem here, I've never wanted casual sex badly enough to decide that I wasn't going to do SM unless I also got intercourse/my partner did something to induce orgasm/etc.

Yeah, if I had a steady partner, SM scenes would lead to sex often, I'm sure. But I'm equally sure that for me, sometimes they wouldn't, and that wouldn't seem incomplete to me.

PMFJI,

Sex is what happens inside my head. What "label" you want to put on the particular version of sex I'm having at a particular point in time/space is up to you. LIke beauty, I know it when I see it, and so do you. But we'll never agree on what it is.

What's going on with my body is just hormones. If my mind is along for the ride then it's a whole lot more fun. However, the two can operate independently (an unusual situation, to be sure)

As for vanillification (great term!, and one that my sub is going to master while gagged <vbg>) and the general "mass market" degeneration of the "community", all I can say is thank God for the internet, where we can go hide from all the weirdo's out there :-)

TooLoose :-)

Hi, all,

I hope I didn't give some folks the wrong impression. In no way do I think that "penetrative" sex is the "epitome" of sexual experience or expression. I was merely asking why it is allowed in some "swinger" venues and not in "BDSM" venues. I don't ever remember, in my post, stating that "penetrative" sex is a "requirement" for a good scene.

I said that, to me, BDSM IS SEX. I made the comment that, "I am, however, in a committed relationship and SEX is part and parcel of every "scene" we have at home". I don't remember anyplace in that post where I said that "penetrative" sex is something that is part and parcel of every "scene" we have at home.

SEX is a part and parcel of "every" scene I have ever been in or wish to be in because it is always, for me, what drives the scene. Why, did you ask? Simple...I like to spank "dragon" because it makes me hard and gets her wet. I do SM because that is what happens when I do SM. I do D/s for the same reason. I grab a hunk of my "dragon's" hair, grip her by the throat tightly, and do some major league "spelunking" with my tongue in her mouth. She immediately goes into headspace and so do I. Sometimes it leads to a "scene" and sometimes it is just an expression of love for my slave. It always makes both of us "hot".

She serves me because that is her wish...and mine as well, and she derives great pleasure from that, as do I, and that is, overall, the basis of our relationship. But, I really just couldn't have a D/s or M/s relationship, love my slave deeply, and not want to have SEX with her, in any way I could get it.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Knyghtflyher

P.S. When I get my website back up, read a short story I wrote called "The Date". You should come away from that story knowing why I miss the "right" to have penetrative sex in some play spaces. -

<< Where or when did 'intercourse/penetrative sex' become synonymous with 'sex'? >>

Hmm. I vacillate on this one.

I certainly don't think that the only experiences I'd call sexual, or "sexual enough", involve intercourse or involve genitals being played with or involve orgasm.

I used those terms in these posts because I took Molly's "sex" comments to be talking about intercourse/oral sex/mutual masturbation/those kinds of things, rather than about the sexual nature of various SM acts.

I do see SM as a sexual thing, and SM acts as sexual ones -- which is part of the reason that I look askance at the idea that "not having 'sex'" in SM scenarios means you've had the icing without the cake.

I vacillate on calling SM acts "sex" because -- well, most people would think it a stretch to call a spanking or a flogging or some nipple torture. etc. "sex". I usually use the term "sexual acts" to avoid stretching out the term so much. But you're right, it's all more similar than not.

It also helps to use more standard meanings of the term "sex" to explain what it is I'm choosing not to do casually. :)

Knyght --

I didn't think you were saying penetrative sex is the epitome exactly. It dif seem to me like you were saying that you probably would involve penetrative sex in -- most? all? of your scenes if it were permitted. I wondered if you meant that you felt that some of the enjoyment was (always) missing from your public scenes since you couldn't have such sex.

As far as your point about "BDSM is sex" -- unless I'm off base here, it's the same point as one I'm making -- that (for you, and probably for most) this stuff is sexual, this stuff is about sexual response (and other things too, but that's not relevant to this point), regardless of what exactly is being done and how. That's how I see this stuff, as well.

Like I was saying, one thing I like about SM is it's a way to be sexual that doesn't *necessarily* involve conventional definitions of "sex".

Trinity - I understand what you're saying about top space, and I find it difficult to explain too. It's intensely sexual for me, but I don't orgasm from it [in fact if I want to orgasm I have to 'come down' a bit from top space - it's almost as if they are two different directions].

The feeling I get in top space is not so much 'I'm so turned on I really want to have sex' - it's more 'I'm so turned on I really want to hurt my sub more'. I want to see his eyes look pleadingly at me, and his breath shorten - I want to see him intoxicated with pain. That is the most exciting thing ever, and why I tend to call myself a sadist rather than a dom.

I am in a long term relationship with my sub, and we do have sex - great sex! But vanilla sex is not necessarily part of a scene, nor is the scene foreplay for sex. Sometimes I want to do SM but I don't want to do sex. [As I am fascinated by male genitals and backsides sexual contact is inevitable - but genitals often aren't involved at the 'climax' of the scene].

Knyghtflyer - I don't know about the laws where you live, but here I believe that a special licence is required for a sex club. That seems to be the main reason why there is sex at some clubs and not at others.

Wow, Trin and Jewel: you both really described the femdom sexual experience as I know it too. Being able to be totally fulfilled by the SM alone and liking (but not necessarily needing) the orgasm.

Jewel wrote:

<<The feeling I get in top space is not so much 'I'm so turned on I really want to have sex' - it's more 'I'm so turned on I really want to hurt my sub more'. I want to see his eyes look pleadingly at me, and his breath shorten - I want to see him intoxicated with pain. That is the most exciting thing ever, and why I tend to call myself a sadist rather than a dom. >>

YES YES YES. Amazing. (Though the hunger to hurt and control more does make me wet, as a slutty by-product *g*)

Why don't we non-pro femdoms talk about this more often? (Imagining more than a few subs who are reading this being speechless right about now...) *wink*

Molly,

<<I remember the first evening watch Philip giving his girl a brutal caning (she was a painslut). Now even though I didn't (yet) enjoy pain. I said to myself "god he's terrifying. I MUST have him"! >>

That's a very revealing confession! If terror is a turn-on, then I can see where a lot of the public scene would be pretty disappointing these days. It seems very rare to find truly passionate SM play. Personally I find it odd to walk into an SM club where no one is screaming or sweating or panting deliriously or crawling around on the floor. Like--where did all the SM go? Everybody has shiny new equipment and cool clothing but only occasionally do you see something that really raises your eyebrows--and eyebrow-raising is one of my favorite things about SM. ;-)

So is this just my own personal skew? Do you think public SM has been watered down? Has anyone besides Philip ever caught your attention so dramatically in a public space?

(General posting)

I would have thought this was obvious, but 'public' play does not always mean at a venue where you can just walk in off the street. While most of those sorts of places (where the only entry requirements are that you're an adult and have whatever the cover charge is in your pocket) ban sexual contact (primarily for health and insurance reasons), there are many other types of public venues where entry is restricted by various means and open sexual expression of all kinds is perfectly fine. ;-)

Be safe,
T.

<< It seems very rare to find truly passionate SM play. Personally I find it odd to walk into an SM club where no one is screaming or sweating or panting deliriously or crawling around on the floor. >>

I feel the same way now that I moved. Back where I used to live, the local community was very close-knit and people did all kinds of passionate intense things. I went to a recent party around here, and it stunned me how *dead* the crowd seemed. Every once in a while some really electrifying scene would happen... but most of the night was pretty dull. I had people coming up to me after I played who seemed really impressed with my intensity -- and I loved the compliments, of course, but at the same time I wondered: how little fun are they having if that surprises them so? It wasn't even that I was doing anything "edgy" -- I wasn't doing anything at all "risky" or "scary". Pretty standard stuff. But -- shocker of shockers -- I, and the person I was playing with, were really *into it*. Which was apparently, to this really sedate crowd, surprising.

Yecch.

You really want to get me in trouble here <grin>

Another tribute laid on the alter of unintended consequences. When we were "outlaws" the pariah status tended to push people away who had a strong need for social approval. I think this is no longer true and the welcome mat is out for those who are basically risk adverse. We have become Kabuki theatre, shadowboxers, a dance club. People enter the scene, read a few books, attend a few classes and learn their "steps". whack, whack, whack...cha cha cha.

Most of what I see in the dungeon bores me to tears. What should be a starting point, becames the finale. There is an amazing lack of imagination and passion. I've been in dungeon so obsessed by safty they told a women to take off her high heels, they were afraid she would fall. Too many tops too lazy to gain the competance to be able to take risks to go beyond the ritual pat, pat, pat. Too many bottoms who are risk adverse. And with the competance levels of the people they play with no wonder. I've been interupted during the midst of a very hot scene because the DM wanted to put bandaids on my ass. And since hardly anyone is doing SM, qualities like submissiveness have no meaning. Its a dance club..get yourself the prettiest bottom you can find...feh

All too often the people getting in trouble with the DMs are the only ones that do anything at all for me. I was a guest Dm in a midwestern city one time. There was one guy playing there, hot passionate and competant. And people were getting squicked because he was drawing blood with his singletail. Now, I knew the bottom he was working on...a very heavy masochist that was enjoying everything that was being done to her. Yet I had to deal with the complaints that he was breaking the rules by drawing blood. I went over to him and said,
I am so sorry to interupt you, great scene. Unfortunately, people are getting a bit squicked, so could work on another part of her for a while? And BTW are you busy later?"

OK, I admit it. I'm getting to be an old curmugeon...who has to tell about them good old days when we walked ten miles to the dungeon, uphill both ways.

Molly,

Was he??????? lol.

Knyghtflyher

Molly,

In the grand scheme of things I'm a pretty risk averse person *g* -- but I agree with you that I don't at all like people who do SM that looks more like they're halfheartedly playing drums than present with another person. Bleah.

To me it's not so much how shocking what you do is or isn't as how much of your heart is in it. Unfortunately many people's aren't -- and this leads them to become the sort of SSC Nazi you're describing. Yuck.

BTW -- *rules* against drawing blood? That's just... bad. I've seen people ask that bloody play be done in certain areas of the dungeon so as not to offend delicate sensibilities (my personal opinion of such: "Sheesh! Get over it!"), but I don't think I've ever seen "thou shalt never draw blood in this dungeon." :-X

Oh my. Has play in public spaces become watered down? Does the Lockness monster fart in the water? Most recently at SEEB, I observed an interesting thing. There were two really intense, hot scenes that took place that I saw. One involved needles with strings attached to the needle hubs and the other ends to the chain hoist, with the needles running down both arms and the bottom being single tailed to where she probably had 50+ welts on her back and tail, interspersed with the single tial falling over the strings and pulling on the needles. There was probablt 50 people watching that scene with baited breath. The other was later in the night and involved a dildo held in place with this ingenious clamp and a beating that was intense to watch, so far from slap and tickle to make me sigh with happiness. The interesting thing to me was that people really liked watching those scenes and looking at their faces you had to wonder if they wished that they could play that way? They can and its nice to still see it in public on occasion, but with the bar having been lowered (my opinion) to the point now that it has, what with SSC, dungeon monitors, the squick factor of the masses who would rather condemn what they see that squicks them as opposed to ask reasonable adult questions about it from those playing, I don't think its suprising that public play has reached the level of excitment of a round of putt putt or midnight cosmic bowling. There has been the question around the southeast, of where did all the experienced players go? Well they went and played together in private, where blood, piss, penis` and pussies can be actively involved. They sure as hell did not quit playing, they simply did not invite the city, state, nation or world to come tell them what it was that they were doing wrong. A dungeon monitor that comes to put band aids on the ass or any other part of someone I am playing with has just consented to become part of my scene as a second bottom. Darwinism is way behind the curve now, it would seem. Is sex always involved in every scene? No. Is it sexual? Well duh. When someone takes there clothes off it becomes sexual. But like Gloria and some others have expressed, the SM itself can make me point magnetically north and put me into a headspace simpky from watching that is very, very sexual. It also varies somewhat with whom I am playing as to whether sex become involved during or when its over. If its with adrienne, oh my my my my. Some of you have seen adrienne and I together, and I am sure know the answer, but for those that don't.....oh hell yeah, I expect her to thank me properly :) For other parnters where the play is casual and/or public, probably not. Note also, "casual" does not equate with "light". I talk to much, but its been an interesting thread to read and rarely do I go back and read 20 some odd posts that I didn't catch the first go around.

Justin Medlin
Happy Camper

Molly,

you forgot 'barefoot, in the snow'...

Its ok to be a curmudgeon. I've been one since I was 6 and it hasn't hurt me none.

I said this in another thread, several months ago, but what you're seeing at the clubs and parties is the inevitable consequence of commercialization and mainstreaming. I've yet to see a 'secret society' manage to gain public popularity/acceptance AND preserve its core values and 'insider' ethics. Sad, but true.