Actual Mindfuck

[Pure]

Hi Phoenix,

There a lot of truth to what you say about knowing the partner's feelings. Obviously that's necessary to exploit them (in the non moral sense of the term).

What should be added is that--given an interest in the bottom's feeling by the top-- there are two ends of a continuum, and I'm not comfortable at all, calling one, 'mindfuck' or certainly 'actual mindfuck.'

One is defined in terms of solicitude. Not unlike the solicitude of many surgeons. "This will hurt, but it's for your own good."
Or better, the therapist who says, "I know it hurts to 'go there,' but you'll feel better once we go through all the mountain of negativity; I will lead you through; trust me."

The other is defined in terms of indifference. "I caused the hurt. I wanted to. I got off on it. Deal with it."

Particularly where there is advance reassurance, I don't think it's much of a mindfuck at all: "This will hurt, but you know I love you and after you suffer for an hour, we'll have great makeup sex."

None of this is to disqualify or put down any number of games. Nor to assess those who want something 'lite.'

But to me, the concept 'actual mindfuck' as intentionally produced mental distress (without experiment, testing, or sham) is necessarily towards the 'indifferent' end of the continuum. This isn't to say I'm against the top loving the bottom, just that to actually fuck their mind, you have to (for a time at least) be callous about the mental distress, and open about the sadistic motive.

If there's too much solicitude or resulting warm fuzzy trust, then any distress is entirely muted in the thought "This is a brief thing; s/he loves me; and I'll see and bask in that love very soon."

 

[Netzach]

I like what KC said.

"If it feels bad you don't belong in it"

There's stuff that feels bad that you know is good, like dentistry.

And there's stuff that feels bad that you know is bad, like decapitation by religious fanatics.

I think there's levels of solicitude to be dealt with.

I think too much setup, too much of a certainty that great make up sex will ensue is not what I'm getting at.

But in the case of a relationship where there's so much at stake, and yet there's so much foundation, how can there not be some faint trust that bears the bottom along? ...this makes the unpredictable outcomes of "mindfuck" something that can be digested at all, assimilated by rational and self-preserving people.

In the example that SD cited, there must have been some faith in the relationship and some basic principle in it to make the slave accept that he may or may not have done something to warrant the punitive-seeming actions and accept either possibility.

 

[Pure]

Hi N,

In brief I don't know how far actual mindfucks can occur in settled, routinized relationships.

That's why I found Etoile's example unclear as to status.

In any case, let's stipulate that might be such, but not get hung up on it. This is an old point: Without saying anything about the desirability of long term partnerships, I don't think they should be the standard matrix in which all sex, or even all kinky sex is discussed or analyzed.

As to your statement

But in the case of a relationship where there's so much at stake, and yet there's so much foundation, how can there not be some faint trust that bears the bottom along? ...this makes the unpredictable outcomes of "mindfuck" something that can be digested at all, assimilated by rational and self-preserving people.

In the example that SD cited, there must have been some faith in the relationship and some basic principle in it to make the slave accept that he may or may not have done something to warrant the punitive-seeming actions and accept either possibility.

Of course, yes, there's apparently a settle situation, one of at least faint trust in the SD example. Those sorts of relationships have a degree of predictability: Even if she's occasionally displeased for no apparent reason, in general, if the 'sub' does his jobs she's pleased.

I'm not sure, however, if this fits the other examples given. (OSG, fungi, and I).

You seem to acknowledge the point that one wants 'unpredictable outcomes.'

If I may use an example, chess, like sex, occurs in settled relationships. But the general 'rules' of these 'games' are NOT necessarily clear, there.

For instance, in *married chess* it may be advisable NOT to win every game with your partner. Similarly, sex must be slotted, treated certain ways. Usually there is scheduling. (I see more bdsm treatments, esp. in this forum as skewed toward the permanent and long run, as better for both; a bit like the Victorian attachment to marriiage.

But the picture is quite different for the non married, non settled.

After one or more sexual encounters, one person may simply disappear or break off.

I'm trying to make the point that the actual mindfuck is best seen in cases where there is not general predictability; i.e., where there are not routines, and 'trust' is minimal (but enough to say s/he won't kill me; the law will be observed.).

 

[Shadowsdream]

Pure

What makes you so sure that I am "pleased" simply because My slave does a good job? Please clarify.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Hi Phoenix,

There a lot of truth to what you say about knowing the partner's feelings. Obviously that's necessary to exploit them (in the non moral sense of the term).

What should be added is that--given an interest in the bottom's feeling by the top-- there are two ends of a continuum, and I'm not comfortable at all, calling one, 'mindfuck' or certainly 'actual mindfuck.'

One is defined in terms of solicitude. Not unlike the solicitude of many surgeons. "This will hurt, but it's for your own good."
Or better, the therapist who says, "I know it hurts to 'go there,' but you'll feel better once we go through all the mountain of negativity; I will lead you through; trust me."

The other is defined in terms of indifference. "I caused the hurt. I wanted to. I got off on it. Deal with it."

Particularly where there is advance reassurance, I don't think it's much of a mindfuck at all: "This will hurt, but you know I love you and after you suffer for an hour, we'll have great makeup sex."

None of this is to disqualify or put down any number of games. Nor to assess those who want something 'lite.'

But to me, the concept 'actual mindfuck' as intentionally produced mental distress (without experiment, testing, or sham) is necessarily towards the 'indifferent' end of the continuum. This isn't to say I'm against the top loving the bottom, just that to actually fuck their mind, you have to (for a time at least) be callous about the mental distress, and open about the sadistic motive.

If there's too much solicitude or resulting warm fuzzy trust, then any distress is entirely muted in the thought "This is a brief thing; s/he loves me; and I'll see and bask in that love very soon."

To begin with, much of the difference of opinion I see here, as was also true in at least one other, the 'selfish sex' thread, has to do with definitions. Definitions of 'mindfuck' actual or otherwise, and definitions of where the continuum or continui (?) continuums (?) lie.
I see your interest being in where the boundaries and gray areas are, of any definition, and further, your focus being in permeating those boundaries, ie. non-consent. This isn't an attempt to psychoanalyze or compliment or insult, but an attempt to state where I see you as having your main interest and coming from.

Having laid out my assumptions -- to me, the conditions you offer, are part of the question. The continuum you describe, placing 'interest in subs feelings' at one end and 'indifference' at the other, leaves out another pole that exists at the interest in. One can be interested in and aroused by the subs distress, with or without being concerned by it. (One could even be disturbed and upset by it while still being turned on, but, to simplify things, a condition I won't go into here.) These are pole ends, too. In other words, an interest in, doesn't necessarily have any effect on or imply solicitude.

Could be quite the opposite. I would argue that the one who is interested would do the 'better,' more effective, mindfuck, as s/he would simply like be more observant of the effect s/he was having. It can depend on whether the object is to simply, indifferently, do as one wishes, or whether one wishes to actively elicit a certain reaction from the sub.

I would also argue that any kind of mindfuck could be more effective in 'settled, routinize relationships' both because they can be so unsettling (and you have to be settled to get unsettled), and because it is more likely that you care. A mindfuck from an almost stranger, depending of course on the content, can be shrugged off more easily.

What a person I don't know very well does or says to me just doesn't have the same power to effect me as the same thing from someone I'm in a longterm relationship with. (This presumes, of course, that in a longtime sexual relationship you are likely to have more feelings to be hurt than you do than in, say, your longtime non-sexual relationship with your dentist.) Plus, (unless they are at the indifferent, only wants to do what s/he wants with callous disregard end of the spectrum, rather than trying to get to you end,) someone who has known you for a long time is that much more likely to know how.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

aack! the dreaded doublepost.

 

[Pure]

phoenix said,

In other words, an interest in, doesn't necessarily have any effect on or imply solicitude.

It's a separate issue, yes. If you like, another dimension or continuum. (pl continua).

Could be quite the opposite. I would argue that the one who is interested would do the 'better,' more effective, mindfuck, as s/he would simply like be more observant of the effect s/he was having.

Agreed, and I posted to this effect quite recently (5-18, 11:11am--quoted by you, in fact).

I'm not sure of the point you're making, but yes, there are crude, imperceptive boorish tops, and there are psychologically insightful and sophisticated ones. My main interest in all threads is in the latter, since complexities of SM can only receive superficial treatment if minds and feeling are ignored.

I will think over your other points, but respond a little now. Surely you admit that the sword cuts both ways. If you're sure of your partner, and see a pattern (they say, for instance, 'I'm leaving' but don't carry through), you can have some inward assurance or faith. At the same time I agree that persons with relationships with you (that you prize) have the potential for inflicting serious damage. E.g., when one teen lover drops the other, the other may kill him/herself. The seriously damaging events, it seems to me, are those that are relatively unique or rare: After 20 years, your spouse falls in love with another and tell you s/he wants out.

What I object to here and elsewhere, in discussing sexual urges, needs, fantasies and practices, is always referring back to some ideal semipermanent arrangement to find out the 'norms' and 'ethics' of sexual situations.

Life has general problems; here's an example: What do you do if someone demands you give them money? To discuss the problem as "What do you do if your *wife* (or husband, or longterm committed lover) demands money" completely skews the discussion (since the answer, in many cases, is 'Discuss it, but give them some.')

Lastly, I'd slightly correct your statement (and not the amendment to the initial posting).

your focus being in permeating those boundaries, ie. non-consent.

I'm interested in 'gray areas,' yes. OTOH, I'm NOT talking about engaging in real situations where legally there is 'nonconsent', and hence a crime, e.g, assault. Occasionally, when crimes are discussed, it's to be understood that we're talking about fantasies and stories. A good number of stories at lit involve crimes, and I've listed a few in the 'extreme' thread of authors hangout.

Thanks for a provocative posting.

J



----


phoenix said,

To begin with, much of the difference of opinion I see here, as was also true in at least one other, the 'selfish sex' thread, has to do with definitions. Definitions of 'mindfuck' actual or otherwise, and definitions of where the continuum or continui (?) continuums (?) lie.
I see your interest being in where the boundaries and gray areas are, of any definition, and further, your focus being in permeating those boundaries, ie. non-consent. This isn't an attempt to psychoanalyze or compliment or insult, but an attempt to state where I see you as having your main interest and coming from.

Having laid out my assumptions -- to me, the conditions you offer, are part of the question. The continuum you describe, placing 'interest in subs feelings' at one end and 'indifference' at the other, leaves out another pole that exists at the interest in. One can be interested in and aroused by the subs distress, with or without being concerned by it. (One could even be disturbed and upset by it while still being turned on, but, to simplify things, a condition I won't go into here.) These are pole ends, too. In other words, an interest in, doesn't necessarily have any effect on or imply solicitude.

Could be quite the opposite. I would argue that the one who is interested would do the 'better,' more effective, mindfuck, as s/he would simply like be more observant of the effect s/he was having. It can depend on whether the object is to simply, indifferently, do as one wishes, or whether one wishes to actively elicit a certain reaction from the sub.

I would also argue that any kind of mindfuck could be more effective in 'settled, routinize relationships' both because they can be so unsettling (and you have to be settled to get unsettled), and because it is more likely that you care. A mindfuck from an almost stranger, depending of course on the content, can be shrugged off more easily.

What a person I don't know very well does or says to me just doesn't have the same power to effect me as the same thing from someone I'm in a longterm relationship with. (This presumes, of course, that in a longtime sexual relationship you are likely to have more feelings to be hurt than you do than in, say, your longtime non-sexual relationship with your dentist.) Plus, (unless they are at the indifferent, only wants to do what s/he wants with callous disregard end of the spectrum, rather than trying to get to you end,) someone who has known you for a long time is that much more likely to know how.

 

[Pure]

Hi SD,

You said

Pure

What makes you so sure that I am "pleased" simply because My slave does a good job? Please clarify.

I had said,
"Of course, yes, there's apparently a settle[d] situation, one of at least faint trust in the SD example. Those sorts of relationships have a degree of predictability: Even if she's occasionally displeased for no apparent reason, in general, if the 'sub' does his jobs she's pleased."

It was an inference, SD; if it's wrong, correct it. The inference seemed _plausible_ given your description of the shock effect of the 'cold attitude'. If you give some details to us who don't know you, it will clarify things. Maybe you almost never indicate approval or disapproval, and generally remain inscrutable (neither warm nor cold)??

 

[Shadowsdream]

Hi SD,

You said

Pure

What makes you so sure that I am "pleased" simply because My slave does a good job? Please clarify.

I had said,
"Of course, yes, there's apparently a settle[d] situation, one of at least faint trust in the SD example. Those sorts of relationships have a degree of predictability: Even if she's occasionally displeased for no apparent reason, in general, if the 'sub' does his jobs she's pleased."

It was an inference, SD; if it's wrong, correct it. The inference seemed _plausible_ given your description of the shock effect of the 'cold attitude'. If you give some details to us who don't know you, it will clarify things. Maybe you almost never indicate approval or disapproval, and generally remain inscrutable (neither warm nor cold)??

Thank you for clarifying the inference

 

[shy slave]

This thread appears to bounce all over the place, covering ethics, abuse, definitions etc that it is difficult to pull aspects together; but interesting to keep trying.
I have tried to sum up some of the recent posts/opinions

SD said
"Generalities do not fit well when talking about mind fucks"

I agree with this but generalities are made all the time.
Courts of Law on both sides of the pond make them in an attempt to bring 'order from chaos' (no comments that it often makes choas from order please!).

The wider public arena make generalisations about BDSM.
BDSM make generalisation about vanilla lifestyles based on our knowledge from our own experiences.
Therefore although generalisations do not fit well, how else can individuals make decisions or form opinions when dealing in shades of grey.

Pure talks of two ends of the continuum~one end is game playing the other end is to cause actual distress and being open about the sadistic intention of that distress.

Netzach says that a faint trust makes it possible to digest and assimilate a mind fuck.
I am presuming that this means that in a known relationship mindfucks are simply that and not abuse. If I have misunderstood, I am sorry, can you explain further N?

PS argues that its possible to be aware of the subs distress with or without being concerned regarding that distress.
This ties into Pures comment about what an actual mind fuck is.
She also argues that mind fucks are more effective in a settled relationship, as the care aspect and being unsettled by the unexpectedness of the mindfuck itself.

Opinions seem divided about whether mind fucks are more or less effective in an established relationship.

By effective I(personally) mean:
a)Did it unsettle the sub throughout the whole of the mind fuck?
b)Make them query their role and place in life?
c)Did this cause the sub 'real' mental distress not a game playing distress?
d)Was it unexpected and sadistic in its own right?
e)Was the Dom able to bring them back from this without lingering after effects?

I agree with PS in this, if a mindfuck is played by a stranger
a) How can you be 100 % sure it was a mind fuck, that person may always act like that.
b)In some cases it is easier to walk away and put it down to experience.

Mind fucks in an established relationship are more effective due to their unexpectedness, and within SSC, in theory, they should be safer ie no lasting effects other than trepidation, excitment of the memory. Not long lasting mental distress

Thats the best summery of opinions I can come up with.

But what interests me about mind fucks is the legal implications.

Would a court of law in US/UK/Europe take RACK or SSC into account if the Dom caused long-term mental distress from a mind fuck, if the sub later challenged the Doms' right to cause this distress.

(Similiar to other threads that are on the board) would a court see this type of D/s situation as abuse? If so at what point does an actual mind fuck become abuse
Taking Pure's opinion:
"the concept 'actual mindfuck' as intentionally produced mental distress (without experiment, testing, or sham)"

Does abuse occur before the actual mind fuck with the intention to cause distress, at the time of the mind fuck or afterwards when long term mental distress continues when the mind fuck is over?

If challenged could the Dom use the arguement effectively that the sub could have choosen to walk away from the mind fuck, confused but mentally intact at any time.
Or is that a weak arguement in the same sense that people who are survivors of DV could have walked away at any time.

Would like to know anyone's two cents on the legal implications, is it abuse and at what point is it abuse; or if I have missed out/misunderstood anyone's view point.

On a final note: Pure stop winding Etoile and Sunfox up!! Its not nice really it isn't

 

[sunfox]

I had said,
"Of course, yes, there's apparently a settle[d] situation, one of at least faint trust in the SD example. Those sorts of relationships have a degree of predictability: Even if she's occasionally displeased for no apparent reason, in general, if the 'sub' does his jobs she's pleased."

I only quoted in part, because this is what I wanted to address.

You seem to be under the assumption that in a settled relationship, a mindfuck cannot easily be as panicking and nervewracking as it is in a less settled relationship. I disagree.

In a short term, or non-permanent relationship of any sort, I could give a fuck less if someone threatens to leave, tries to upset me. If they irritate me, they can go... I have no time for it. There's plenty of replacements for them that won't get on my nerves with mind game shit.

In a true relationship, you have something to lose. Something you value. The threat of loss, or any sort of threat that rocks the boat uncomfortably, can panic you... even if it is done repeatedly, the shock never completely goes away. This is something you want to keep, to preserve. A mindfuck in that situation destroys the bedrock of your comfort zone, and is thus all the more destructive and frightening.

IMO, a mindfuck loses some of its power in a new/potentially temporary relationship, because there is considerably less to lose if this time, the threat proves to be true.

 

[sunfox]

On a final note: Pure stop winding Etoile and Sunfox up!! Its not nice really it isn't

Dang it, you were writing while I was, and I wrote a lot of what you did!

But thank you for the defense... though I suspect Pure enjoys yanking my chain.

 

[Etoile]

On a final note: Pure stop winding Etoile and Sunfox up!! Its not nice really it isn't

As for me, I don't really mind it. I know Pure's a reasonably intelligent person, and I can agree to disagree with him.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

phoenix said,

Could be quite the opposite. I would argue that the one who is interested would do the 'better,' more effective, mindfuck, as s/he would simply like be more observant of the effect s/he was having.

Agreed, and I posted to this effect quite recently (5-18, 11:11am--quoted by you, in fact).

I'm not sure of the point you're making, but yes, there are crude, imperceptive boorish tops, and there are psychologically insightful and sophisticated ones. My main interest in all threads is in the latter, since complexities of SM can only receive superficial treatment if minds and feeling are ignored.

The point I'm trying to make isn't about boorishness and imperception versus the insight. Pretty tired today so not sure how clear I can be but will try, and may need to use a personal example to illlustrate. There are those who assert control, or administer pain, in anticipation of the effect on the sub. It's eliciting a reaction that is their thing, and the reaction is their cue, in a sense, for what to do next and where to go with things. (They can be caring or not, sadistic or not, and lots of other variations. Including indifferent to the damage they may or may not create, or not.) Then there are the ones whose wish to dominate or whip or whatever is regardless of the subs reaction. The sub is more of a blank slate or canvas. Whether they are personally boorish or not, whether they are normally observant or not, their dominance is Not about how their sub reacts. Not about the other's feelings at all for bad or good. Could be about something like enjoying watching flesh bleed, for instance, or more mildly, have their way, even gently, with someone's body, again, regardless of how the other feels about it. The act is selfish in a different sense than you talked about in the selfish dom thread, but I would argue that whether it is more or less painful to the sub, it is more selfish at the most basic level of the word. It is for them, at its best, when it is totally about them.

To bring it into a mindfuck arena, they would probably be more attracted to Mind Control than to purposely trying to hurt the other person. But is that any less a mindfuck? Surely a sub could be just as fucked up by their actions?

Anyway, maybe I should post about this on that other thread as its not the way this thread is going but is part of the point I was trying to make.

I will think over your other points, but respond a little now. Surely you admit that the sword cuts both ways. If you're sure of your partner, and see a pattern (they say, for instance, 'I'm leaving' but don't carry through), you can have some inward assurance or faith. At the same time I agree that persons with relationships with you (that you prize) have the potential for inflicting serious damage. E.g., when one teen lover drops the other, the other may kill him/herself. The seriously damaging events, it seems to me, are those that are relatively unique or rare: After 20 years, your spouse falls in love with another and tell you s/he wants out.

Could be but doesn't have to be. Some of us are like Charlie Brown. Surprised again and again by Lucy and that football. Some of us even like it that way. And relationships can change in surprising ways, even after 20 years. Including even day to day.

What I object to here and elsewhere, in discussing sexual urges, needs, fantasies and practices, is always referring back to some ideal semipermanent arrangement to find out the 'norms' and 'ethics' of sexual situations.

Hey, no problem here! I'm not marriage-o-centric. Or at least not a marriage-chauvenist. Don't know where you're getting this but it's not my intention to make assumptions for others about what is ideal.

The other point was just that unless they are quite perceptive, it usually takes knowing someone for quite a while to know how to play them or mindfuck them in more than a generic way.
I just remember someone once trying to get to me, in a non-sexual way, by calling me a 'cunt' and some other names at the top of her lungs in a public place, because I didn't do as she wished. A seemingly sophisticated and intelligent woman.
And I could tell by her face, that she thought that because of my generally gentle, softspoken demeanor at the time, she was really enjoying doing what she thought would shock and do a number on me. Make me crumple in tears, apparently. You should have seen the disconcerted look on the poor woman's face when my spontaneous reaction was to laugh delightedly in her face at her piss-poor performance. Went from being so sure, to so thrown, it was practically heartbreaking. Don't know if I described it well but it felt like mind-aikido. Point is, she didn't know me.

 

[Netzach]

I'm not obesessed with serial monogamy, I just happen to be in a relationship and find myself doing D/s things in the context of a relationship.

I don't get off doing mindfucks on people I don't know because I'm not invested in their reactions, it's the same reason the hookup and screw one night thing never worked for me.

 

[Pure]

Ok, Netz, care to tell of an example mindfuck of your oao? (details changed to protect the guilty).

(If the category 'actual mindfuck' makes any sense to you, state whether the term applies.).

 

[Pure]

OK, phoenix, I catch your drift



There are those who assert control, or administer pain, in anticipation of the effect on the sub. It's eliciting a reaction that is their thing, and the reaction is their cue, in a sense, for what to do next and where to go with things. (They can be caring or not, sadistic or not, and lots of other variations. Including indifferent to the damage they may or may not create, or not.) Then there are the ones whose wish to dominate or whip or whatever is regardless of the subs reaction. The sub is more of a blank slate or canvas. Whether they are personally boorish or not, whether they are normally observant or not, their dominance is Not about how their sub reacts. Not about the other's feelings at all for bad or good. Could be about something like enjoying watching flesh bleed, for instance, or more mildly, have their way, even gently, with someone's body, again, regardless of how the other feels about it. The act is selfish in a different sense than you talked about in the selfish dom thread, but I would argue that whether it is more or less painful to the sub, it is more selfish at the most basic level of the word. It is for them, at its best, when it is totally about them.

I'm not sure where you're going with this; how is the distinction useful? (Yes it seems different from any category I've proposed, since I'm of psychological bent.) A simple butcher would fit your second category; one who treats a body as a piece of meat. But looking at actual 'butcher' criminal sadists (nasty slice 'n chop n' dice) persons, they usually enjoy the lead up. The sex criminals in Calif (Charles Ng?) made tapes of victims' cries. Necrophiles seems to fit your second category. But relevance?

In the area of mindfucks, I'm not sure the second category (uninterested in reactions) would make any sense. IT would seem that all mindfucks belong in your first category (including those I've labelled 'actual').

 

[Etoile]

Ok, Netz, care to tell of an example mindfuck of your oao? (details changed to protect the guilty).

I looked up OAO at acronymfinder.com and I came up with "One and Only" is that right? I thought Netzach was poly, with M as her primary partner. Maybe she can correct me?

 

[Pure]

I think OAO is correctly applied here, as regards males with whom there is intercoursing. However, if I've got a wrong impression, substitute the acronym PSO (primary significant other).

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi Catalina: It seems you are in the process of 'getting' what I'm trying to say. Probably some statements were confusing. I don't think raising apprehensions by mentioning future events, would be called 'actual mindfuck', if indeed the top never intends that they will happen (i.e., it's ONLY an attempt to scare).

Thanks for responding.

I can see where you are at with this, but also believe it can be be the groundwork for mindfucking. There can be repeated promises/threats of things to happen which never do, preferrably over an extended period of time as opposed to a day/week/month...the sub believes the Dominant will never carry through on their words under any circumstance, relaxes even....and then the pattern changes and the next time it is a reality and does happen, not only providing the initial surprise the D would do such a thing, but that after so long of empty words actually carrying it out. With the right people and circumstances, it could be very enlightening to say the least.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

Phoenix, Netzach and others,

I do understand the advantages of knowing someone, and hence of a longterm committed relationship. Theoretically it should be fertile ground for a 'mindfuck' of any sort.

My hesitations come from 'too cosy' relationships. In a positive and constantly reassuring setting, deceptive or actual mindfucks are going to be hard to pull off. Long time partners, best friends, know that there are 'bad moods', day of 'getting up on the wrong side of the bed.' AND they don't expect the words of such events "I don't want to see you." to have longterm meaning.

In thinking this through, the longterm relationship conducive to mindfucks would, roughly be of the type generally labelled abusive (or tending that way). For example, the wife is not very independent, or self confident. Husband has repeated affairs, sometimes in her face.

This is something like an 'actual mindfuck' in that it's no sham, experiment, test, or deception. (Indeed an actual mindfuck could be set up by one partner openly screwing a third party for their simple, 'selfish' pleasure.)

It's the 'abused' party's unwillingness or inability that permits repetition, which I said is a mark of the 'actual mindfuck.'

In short, while I see the possibilities of these longterm relationships, in fact, its the subset which are leaning towards abuse, which lend themselves to mindfucking of any sort, deceptive or actual.

Again, lines between consensual sadism and abuse are very blurry.

J.

 

[Netzach]

That'd be PSO rather than OAO as I fuck other people, and some of them have dicks, if maleness makes one a one and only


I've done what catalina's talking about, in a more benign way as part of training with many people which is introducing an idea, making it seem like something that might never happen until the dreaded becomes wanted through repetition, epsecially when reminded during moments of sexual graitification, most things will eventually take on a pavlovian association with sex and pleasure until the person wants the formerly unwanted.

Things I've trained someone to accept this way include chastitiy devices, piercings, other sexual partners, humiliation play, crossdressing and a multitude of limits that were deemed soft limits and then became please yes more.

I've done these with various people.

That's not a mindfuck, that's just training.

The only mindfucks I've really had the fortune to get into involve the fake sharp implement chestnut. It's fun though. Try a corkscrew on someone who you know is petrified of knives, make sure they're tied down.



I "pierced" (poked in a specific method, not breaking skin) a very cocky masochist scared shitless of needles willing to go out on a limb with the end of a bobby pin with the little rubber tip taken off and a bit of alcohol, this was a person who'd always bragged and bragged of his prowess as a top with the knife/ice chicanery, so my pulling this off also rubbed in his suceptibility to the same suggestions he loved.

I've slapped G up a lot, he can take it. I've done "maybe I was wrong about you" type of verbal abuse with him, really calling my interest in him into question and watched the fear push towards a very erotic and exciting edge, but one he knew he wasn't actually going over. Doing this with M would be like kicking puppies, I just don't have it in me.

But really I've not engaged in the kind of emotional sadism with my sig others as you bring up. I've also not had that many casual encounters in which I trusted the party enough not to freak out, or felt enough indifference or active dislike to not care if they freaked out or it was detrimental to them. I don't do SM with people I hold in contempt as a rule, not even for my living. That would make me really psychotic, I don't know how professionals who hate every client can stand their lives.

I'm not a huge risk taker I guess. A boring old nurturing sadist who likes to play harder than a lot of other ones. If I had a motto it would be

"Really I care. Hold still now, fucker."

 

[Phoenix Stone]

OK, phoenix, I catch your drift



There are those who assert control, or administer pain, in anticipation of the effect on the sub. It's eliciting a reaction that is their thing, and the reaction is their cue, in a sense, for what to do next and where to go with things. (They can be caring or not, sadistic or not, and lots of other variations. Including indifferent to the damage they may or may not create, or not.) Then there are the ones whose wish to dominate or whip or whatever is regardless of the subs reaction. The sub is more of a blank slate or canvas. Whether they are personally boorish or not, whether they are normally observant or not, their dominance is Not about how their sub reacts. Not about the other's feelings at all for bad or good. Could be about something like enjoying watching flesh bleed, for instance, or more mildly, have their way, even gently, with someone's body, again, regardless of how the other feels about it. The act is selfish in a different sense than you talked about in the selfish dom thread, but I would argue that whether it is more or less painful to the sub, it is more selfish at the most basic level of the word. It is for them, at its best, when it is totally about them.

I'm not sure where you're going with this; how is the distinction useful? (Yes it seems different from any category I've proposed, since I'm of psychological bent.) A simple butcher would fit your second category; one who treats a body as a piece of meat. But looking at actual 'butcher' criminal sadists (nasty slice 'n chop n' dice) persons, they usually enjoy the lead up. The sex criminals in Calif (Charles Ng?) made tapes of victims' cries. Necrophiles seems to fit your second category. But relevance?

In the area of mindfucks, I'm not sure the second category (uninterested in reactions) would make any sense. IT would seem that all mindfucks belong in your first category (including those I've labelled 'actual').

Requoting myself: To bring it into a mindfuck arena, they would probably be more attracted to Mind Control than to purposely trying to hurt the other person. But is that any less a mindfuck? Surely a sub could be just as fucked up by their actions?"

Sounds like your definition of mindfuck means the person who does it must have intent to do harm, not be doing it as an experiment, and and the mindfuck part mustn't be incidental. Am I giving your definition correctly?

 

[Pure]

Anyone!
speaking of acronyms, in a personal or personal services ad, I see g. f. e.-- what is that.


----
Hi Phoenix,

Nice posting, as usual!

Phoenix said,

Sounds like your definition of mindfuck means the person who does it must have intent to do harm, not be doing it as an experiment, and and the mindfuck part mustn't be incidental. Am I giving your definition correctly?

You're in the ball park, but i wanted to define 'actual mindfuck' [amf]; i'm perfectly happy to admit other kinds, based on experiments, deceptions, and enactments.

I think 'do harm' is a little strong, just as 'do bodily harm' is not quite the intent of a body-oriented sadist.

As originally stated, the aim (of the a.m.f.) is, in an authentic manner and intentionally, to create transient or semitransient 'distress' states (not leading to the padded room of the loony bin), including anxiety, uncertainty, self doubt, guilt. And remain within the law. These states being understood to have an erotic character for at least the inflicter, and likely the inflicted.

P: Requoting myself: To bring it into a mindfuck arena, they would probably be more attracted to Mind Control than to purposely trying to hurt the other person. But is that any less a mindfuck? Surely a sub could be just as fucked up by their actions?"

who is 'they'?

But certainly causing or compelling (through 'mind control') a person to do something that would produce, say, acute embarrassment (say, pee themselves in public) would definitely be 'actual mindfuck', with certain qualifications.

 

[Etoile]

Anyone!
speaking of acronyms, in a personal or personal services ad, I see g. f. e.-- what is that.

The AcronymFinder results confirm what I suspected: Good For Everything. (It could also mean Girl Friend Experience, but I'm not sure what that is.)