BDSM and question I have

[sweettalk4u]

Thanks for telling it like it is

 

[Acktion]

Sex addiction is not in the dsm5 btw

Oh, yawn. ***sigh***

I know better than to ever look back on a thread I've made a post in. There is always one in every crowd.

Thank you for that brilliant and stunning sound-bite of an analysis.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Candice.

As it happens, having not only matriculated more than once to a degree in this shit, and spending years serving in the trenches, I've also had to continue post-graduate studies to maintain various certifications and licensures and am very well aware that after a brief appearance in the DSM-III (during the time period when I was diagnosed and treated), sexual addiction was repealed as an accepted primary diagnosis for the DSM-IV while it was allowed as a secondary or tertiary and does not appear in the DSM-V, thank you.

I, unlike most armchair pop-psychologists that want to preach their Holy Writ, am also aware the reasons why it was expurgated in their entirety. Allow me to "edu-ma-cate" you, oh great and munificent Cornholio while you search for TP for your bunghole.

First, there was a "sex-positive" movement during the time period of the DSM-III that I am very happy for those it helped as the gay, lesbian, transgender, queer, non-binary, polyamorous, et. al. would no longer be subjected to a, usually draconian during that time, "treatment" that they did not actually need because a diagnostic stool (and, no, that is not a typo) classified them as "deviant; other." (And, yes. I'm well aware "we ain't there yet," but ask your African American friends how long they've been fighting comparatively.) However, the backlash supplanted much-needed help in those cases, such as mine, where there was actually a problem.

Second, there were, supposedly, issues with the studies that proposed it as a condition for the DSM-III. However, if you actually take the time to look up and read those position papers beyond the Nancy Reagan-esque "Just Say No" sound-bite abstracts, there was no real problem with the design, efficacy, or feasibility of the studies. The problem was that there was no agreed-upon and accepted treatment proposed for sexual addiction in and of itself.

Because, third, the low levels of the same biochemical stew such as serotonin, dopamine, prolactin, oxytocin... you know, I'm not going to write your Junior Psych 3204 "Intro to Neurology" term paper for you. Look 'em up if you want to find out what neurotransmitters tend to be deficient in clinically depressed people that can be boosted during sexual arousal. But, the result was that the findings were similar between depression and sexual addiction on a neurological level enough that the same medications would work reasonably well for both. (In my case, Elavil. Don't bother. It's long since been pulled as more detrimental than what it was supposed to help.)

Fourth, the typical meats on the streets had an imperfect understanding and misdiagnosed swinging dicks that often just wanted an excuse for why they hadn't kept it in their pants (typically during divorce proceedings with heavy alimony on the line) without bothering to do the tests to prove or disprove misfiring glands and neurotransmitters ebb, in my case due to closed head injuries. And I will not lend any additional weight to suppositions that money may have greased palms for such diagnoses since I have no proof they were greedy rather than ignorant.

Last, but not least, there was a dichotomy of acceptance of the new-fangled (at the time) disease concept of addiction when discussing addiction to drugs not manufactured within the body that that "august body" (perhaps almost wisely) didn't want any part of when it came to this other thing where the drug of choice was entirely within.

And, yeah, those same people that were misdiagnosed as well as more than a few who were properly diagnosed who did accept the disease concept of addiction took it as an excuse to continue their behavior. "I can't do anything about it! I'm sick! See?" Very few of us actively fought to "get better."

Ergo, the ivory tower pundits decided to hand down those stone tablets you seem to want to attempt flogging me with sans a diagnosis that was imperfectly understood, taken advantage of, and could be treated similarly as if it were something else in the cases where it did exist, without acknowledging a politically charged widely debated concept that just didn't peddle as well to John and Jane Q. Public from Peoria as that spiffy little sound-bite, "just say no." It even fit on a button, much less a bumper sticker!

But, hey. It's a step up from a white waistcoat with extra-long arms at Bellvue and shock-therapy, or leeches, I suppose.

However, they underestimated the human will to be ignorant and not acknowledge the fact that there is no "normal" or "average," "mean" or "median" when we are talking about individuals but only in the aggregate.

And once again, the meats in the streets promulgate the pulpits spouting that because it is not in the Holy Writ they know, I and others like me are damned. Damned, I say!

But, you do you, candied lips with a mutual oral copulation fetish.

Now, would you perhaps care to actually respond to the Original Poster's lament about Dom(me)s that don't seem to give a fuck about them other than fuckmeat and wank fodder as I was attempting to and everyone but you has attempted to in this conversation rather than attacking me over a decades-long battle (largely successful) to see you as something other than a binary function of potential fuckmeat or one of the rest that I didn't give a fuck about beyond you are a living, breathing organism and I probably shouldn't harm you in any way but see you as an actual person and individual in your own right, whether I would have originally classified you as fuckmeat and wank-fodder or other?

For myself, I don't really care as I've used up my yearly quota of dealing with a troll trying to prove they know a little something. And proving exactly how little they do.

Buh-bye, now. Back under the bridge with you.

 

[LisaVegas]

Ultimately, BDSM is a sexual experience but it sounds like you're looking for something much more than a spanking. Emotional submission, which speaking from experience, has a much more powerful payoff.

There are plenty of Tops out there who will not only have patience and spend time crawling around in your brain but get off on on toying with your emotions. Unfortunately, you'll have to wade through some shitty fakes and some people for whom that's just not what they want.

The right Top for you will be patient and enjoy the cat and mouse game you have to offer. Don't give up but do be up front with what you're looking for and if someone is an asshole then they've done you the favor of letting you know they don't deserve your time.

Good luck!

They are out there but as you said... you do have to put in the time and effort to find one that has the same connection you do and want from it. When you do the sex you have will be some of the best and you will beg for it. Until you are in that situation you have not found the right one.

I do sessions for a group of master and slaves. It is all the things you could imagine... caged... hot wax/oil... spanking... furniture demonstrations... cufs.. toys... The sessions are sexual but not sex. The men and women learn how to give pleasure. I personally love the sessions and by the end of each sesion I do want sex from some I connect with in the group. But the some is very few as compared to the many that attend.

 

[Red__Herring]

...

If I ever take psychology, I hope my professors teach this way.

 

[Red__Herring]

I've chatted with a few of them online and I noticed how angry they get when it's not about sex.

I purposely use this to annoy people if I find someone new and potentially interesting. If they get angry, or ask for reasons and find a middle ground or keep trying to convince me, I say bye. If they can't listen to me now, why will they when I am tied and vulnerable. If they simply accept, it might work. I probably have annoyed away good people too, but this works for me.

Hope you find someone fun.

 

[Ginlover]

Ultimately, BDSM is a sexual experience

I'd disagree. There is nothing sexual when I'm a rope bunny with my rigger, but I give him authority, he has control and I'm off in rope space. There is nothing sexual when I ask a submissive to make me tea in a baby doll dress, but he is getting the feedback he doesnt have to act as a man, he is liberated by the sissification or humiliation or just serving me. Ive spoken to a guy who once a month spends a weekend as a slave for a couple. He cleans the pool, serves drinks and if he is good sleeps on the floor in the kitchen instead of outside in the kennel. For a weekend he is free of daily responsibilities and liberated by serving his (weekend) master and mistress.

Most pro dominatrix do not touch their clients sexually or allow themselves to be touched. They still make a lot of money.

That's covered off Bondage, discipline, dominance and submission. If you go to a club with a dungeon team you'll see lots of sadists flogging masochists but mostly sexual contact is banned or illegal. I know some very asexual people who adore power exchange, submiting and dominating

Regarding the original question my ratio is 1:100 men I've spoken to online I'd consider submitting to. And I've been the proverbial online slut talking to a lot of guys as I developed my writing. Those 1:100 who I have found have become good friends and ive met and played with in some cases. But it would be just as valid for another woman to not think any of the guys I could submit to wouldn't do it for them.

All my now friends who are dominant men talk to me about lots of non-BDSM things. Like cooking, films just sharing after a good or bad day.

I remove dynamics and find a person you connect with first, only move onto RP, guided sessions etc once you've established you actually like someone. I'm straight but I dont think every straight man is fuckable or even I want to talk to just because they are male. Same for self titled dominants, I want to talk to someone who makes me laugh first and foremost the dynamics part comes down the line.

 

[LisaVegas]

How could you say you care about and for your sub, which is the most important thing, if you're pushing her into things she's not ok with? That's bullying and abuse and not a consensual dom/sub exchange

I completely agree with you and the others. The group I model for have hardcore and extreme members. But they would never be apart of this group if they didn't accept set limits and boundaries. I do use Safe words, but in the years with them I can't remember the last time I needed to use one.

Always find and collaborate with others that respect your role no matter what it is.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Most pro dominatrix do not touch their clients sexually or allow themselves to be touched. They still make a lot of money.

Not denying that BDSM can be a non-sexual experience, but - I suspect that observation has as much to do with legalities as anything else. In many places, sex work is illegal but non-sexual BDSM is not, so there are reasons for dommes to lean heavily on "this is not a sexual service", at least in their public-facing material.

In Sydney, where sex work is legal, dommes seem to be less reluctant to acknowledge a sexual aspect to the work.

 

[Justplatonic]

I've always been into BDSM, this is something I always wanted to experience. Deep down though, I will admit, I feel shameful and get upset at myself. This is what I want, but it seems like anytime I try to find an online relationship with a Dom, they seem to push sex almost immediately. Is this how it is? I thought trust would be have to be developed overtime for you to feel comfortable with them. I've chatted with a few of them online and I noticed how angry they get when it's not about sex. I don't think it's completely about sex, it has to be more than that right? Or am I mistaken?

To tell them your secrets, things your afraid of, things you enjoy to do. Don't they want to get to know there sub? Isn't there tasks given to them daily and rules to be followed? Or is it different for everyone? I am new to all of this and asking questions because it's something I do want to experience, but I know I have to look after myself too. So I'd love to hear your opinions and thoughts on this, because this is all new to me and I'm trying to understand it in depth. Thank you.

I'm not sure you'll see this SunshineSam218. But for any other female subs facing the same challenges who may, I'd definitely echo some of the comments previous to my own i.e. provide a clear appraisal of yourself, and what it is you're looking for. You could achieve this by an inventive user handle, and add detail to your signature. Doing this will ensure every comment you make will inform readers consistently.

However I'd speculate despite doing the above, you may need to be repetitive in your comments in a slight different way. I only say this because the above recommendations are static items, so they are not always read, or perceived. But at least you have covered yourself.

I spent a number of years being ashamed and embarrassed about my kinks too. Its difficult to break away from that, but don't underestimate what you've done so far. You've reached out on this forum which is a brave thing to do. Its the first step in coming to terms with who you really are.

Good luck, and I hope you find what you're looking for.

 

[subslut20]

Sub

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who has experienced this. I would like to explore my submissive side more but it can be overwhelming sometimes.

 

[SissySalina]

If it is a good Dom, it is not just about the sex. It is after all a relationship, communication is important and a good Dom understands this. This type of relationship is deeply built on TRUST, the two parties must trust each other and respect each others boundaries. This is achieved only by time and talking with each other.
There are places and people that you can find that push BDSM as a quick experience with someone but even these have a set of rules to follow about the can and cannot.