BDSM is a state of mind (minor rant)

[catalina_francisco]

You are right I did not consider online deceptions. Yes they exist.
But not all online compliance is faked; that's an absurd claim, if you're making it.

Pure, due to the fact this is now ridiculous as we both know you are clearly baiting, after this post I am not going to bother answering any more of your so called questions here. As you well know, and everyone is aware you can read and have a good brain, not to mention the evidence is in the same post you refer to, I said it was not true for all online relationships to fake and be deceptive, so to infer I possibly was claiming it was is an insult to your own intelligence, not mine.

Wouldn't it be better if we could have healthy productive online discussions here without them being killed off by this continual persistence to try and discredit any posters words, hold them to continual interrogation, instead of participating in constructive dialogue? I know personally I am bored with the lack of discussion here lately, as are many regulars, and thought you were too. Doesn't help when you set out to attack anyone who has anything to say....just becomes too tiresome and distracts from positive discussion which may be enlightening more than a bitch fight which is where you try to take it in all the forums and then wonder why you get your butt kicked. We are not before court of law you know.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

Catalina, The issue of online fakery is, as you more or less say, tangential. And introduced by you. It's unfortunate you can't stay on the topic. Even the line you quote, says clearly "If you're making it."

Your 'line' is pretty flimsy, consisting of various attempts to disparage online events as 'play acting', and more recently, sham.

Your lack of any 'case' was ably demonstrated by ADR.

In simple matters of fact, you never admit a mistake, as with your claim about the lower intensity of solitary orgasms.

Belonging as you do to the self-said 24-7 elite, and further possessed of some intelligence, it's unfortunate you can't present your points without grandstanding, diversion, characterization, outbursts, "I know best" and a lot of other BS.

You speak of 'discrediting' when your own efforts are pretty transparent, focussing on what you don't know, but fantasize about me.

Like others wrapped in their own righteousness, there is apparently no tactic so low as to be, in your own eyes, unseemly.

J.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Hi A Desert Rose,

It may surprise you, as it does me, but I think your points are very well taken.

J.

Oh?

Well I could say fuck you, too. But I wouldn't ever be so rude.

 

[s'lara]

i am not so sure that Catalina made a mistake here Pure.

Her tone in discussing the credibility of online vs. real life came across as outraged and a touch snooby, imo, but i do not believe she made a mistake in expressing her opinion. Opinions have no right or wrong as they are often fueled by personal beliefs. You know that.

It seems we're not arguing whether online is the same as r/l. It isn't and we seem to be in agreement on that issue. Lets not get bogged down in semantics. i believe PO was expressing an irritation at online relationships having less validity as r/l relationships. As ADR said and i agree, PO never said they were the same nor that one was "better" than the other. i think the following statement by Catalina is an example of the attitude PO might be referring to that is expressed by r/l'ers when confronted with o/l'ers expressions of their online relationships (correct me if i am wrong PO):

If that virtual world is where a person is comfortable, fine, but I find it a little hard to swallow when they tell me they are living a 24/7 relationship on the same terms as I am, experiencing the same things I am, when they have never had a physical face to face experience. Fantasy and role play are wonderful concepts, but can become exceedingly dangerous and/or insulting when claimed to be the same as real time experiences whether it be BDSM or playing world championship golf....it just ain't the same thing.
Catalina

It is the highlighted portion that presents the outrage and snoobiness i spoke of. C, these are just my impressions and doesn't make it fact that you are snooby, but the outrage is clear. In addition, i do believe your outraged statements couched in the "hey, if it works for you, then that's great" serves only to make the reader feel as if you are barely masking contempt and are offering placating expressions of empathy mixed with obvious distate for those who claim o/l relationships have just as much validity as a r/l relationship. i am referring to myself as "the reader" and obviously don't speak for others.

As to the rant, PO has a point. What one person finds hugely important and life affecting, another might not find it to be so. i personally don't underestimate or venture to postulate that someone's feelings/experiences are invalid because they aren't physically interactive with another ... but yes, there is a difference and they will never the same.


lara

 

[catalina_francisco]

Sorry to have offended you or others s'lara as it was not my intention, and I guess if you knew me personally you would know that was not my intention nor the way I am. All aspects of my life stand as evidence of that as I have never felt anyone was better than anyone else, and have put my life on the line several times for people others who felt themselves caring and giving god fearing souls would not and did not think were worth standing up for or risking their reputation defending.

To tell the truth I went from middle class to living below the poverty line for 14 years, but had the guts and ability to do something about it and pull myself out, going back to education as a mature age student, 6 years of study fulltime while raising 2 children alone, often ill myself and unable to attend lectures, a couple of operations to make it even harder, and taking responsibility for caring for my elderly parents and their needs, but I made it. I never felt even as a child I or anyone else was better or worse at either end of the scale, nor has that concept ever appealed to me in others. Even at 6 years of age I stood up for rights of oppressed people in my community and against the wishes of my family...it is who I am.

My opinion is just that, and as others have said (and added they did not appreciate), and I also said, it is not the same, BUT does not make it better or worse, just different. And as I also said in the quote you highlighted, it is not the same, I never passed a judgement, just stated a fact which I don't think you can deny. A few hours on a computer (which I have done), is not the same as 24/7 in real life (which I do now), especially if the couple have never met, but you do what you do at the moment based on convenience, needs, and possibilities. That is not being snobby, just stating fact, and from recall WD and JM are just two who have said the same without negative comment from anyone.

And what is it, as I have asked before, which makes nearly every discussion an either/or discussion which results in competing posts and accusations instead of genuine topic related discussion and sharing, acknowledging any and all issues under discussion can often co-exist in harmony and suited to those who choose their respective tastes for the reasons which are true reality for them?

This phrase and belief "hey, if it works for you, then that's great", is also something I say as part of my easy going way and belief everyone is entitled to live as they please and are comfortable with, not be expected to fall into my definition of what works for me. Perhaps as in many areas of life these days, people tend to apply only their own meaning to the way a person talks or acts without looking outside the square and relating to a different lifestyle and background. Where I come from (Queensland, Australia). we are known for our layback lifestyle and our live and let live attitudes, but we also are noted for speaking openly and honestly, not in cloaked terms and double meanings or 'beating around the bush' as it is called, just the honest truth as we see it. It often shocks outsiders who are unused to it, and is mistaken because of it's unexpected openness (not malice), but many come to appreciate it as they at least know what you think and that you are not pretending to be someone you are not, or expecting them to be a duplicate of who you are. And before that is mistaken as my saying everyone else is inferior or liars, no, it is not.

Catalina

 

[A Desert Rose]

... Perhaps as in many areas of life these days, people tend to apply only their own meaning to the way a person talks or acts without looking outside the square and relating to a different lifestyle and background....

Catalina

And that has been my point all along.

I don't know Pink, I have never had an exchange with her. For all I know she hates me and has me on her ignore list. But if the reader takes her post, point by point, I fail to see any reason for others to be in such disagreement with her. I also said that the discussion should progress if the posters want it to but do not attribute that progression to things that are inferred as to belonging to Pink. What she said is what she said... nothing more, nothing less.

No one, to this point has said that online is preferrable to r/l experiences and relationships. I did not, Pink did not.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Actually you know what I find the most disturbing, and I have voiced this in the past along with others, is that I had not seen a noted putting down of anyone on the board, especially amongst the regulars before this thread was started, but the minute it is discussed in any way that acknowledges difference (please note I said difference not better or worse), which most have agreed it is, or commented on in any way that does not say 'Í agree' with the original posting, the accusations begin and the judgements are made by dissecting words from posters own perspectives and realities, and not the reality and experienc of the poster who posted themselves. To me I had no difficulty understanding what was being said, and I never made a judgement and said online was worse, but I am labelled with that because a couple of people have it in their minds, not mine. Is it so difficult to speak truth without having to fear?...no wonder our governments seem unable to get it together if this is the way people are beginning to think and act.

I am sorry, but as with others who have already left the board out of disgust with the inability to discuss anything without censure and judgemental accusations, and an often times hint that those who can articulate a thought must be judgeing and snobs, I find it a poor reflection of the BDSM forum it was when I first began to contribute. What about those levelling such judgments looking at their own words and acknowledging their judgementalism? And before someone says, 'you sound angry'. you're darned right I am and proud of it as it has been a lifetime coming. I was told in my last relationship I was the only person he knew who could never get angry no matter what.....so this is a first which I will take as a pat on my own back for progress!! I guess 45 years is a long time to get to this point, but I think I was saving it for an occassion I felt was warranted and as I sorely miss the input of some of the intelligent people who have left and won't come back and share their valueable experiences and knowledge here anymore because they are tired of this exact same thing, I guess it struck me tonight that enough is enough.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

And that has been my point all along.

I don't know Pink, I have never had an exchange with her. For all I know she hates me and has me on her ignore list. But if the reader takes her post, point by point, I fail to see any reason for others to be in such disagreement with her. I also said that the discussion should progress if the posters want it to but do not attribute that progression to things that are inferred as to belonging to Pink. What she said is what she said... nothing more, nothing less.

No one, to this point has said that online is preferrable to r/l experiences and relationships. I did not, Pink did not.

I personally have always found PO to be intelligent and thought provoking, and still do....what I find strange is that people mix up the meaning of such different words as different, better, worse, inferior, superior, equal, etc., and interchange them when they have vastly different meanings, especially in this forum.

Catalina

 

[A Desert Rose]

shit... double post, sorry.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Catalina, my posts in no way single you out. I took the previous quote out of your post in agreement WITH you, not to point out a discrepency or a disagreement with you.

And let's talk about stifling this board and it's posters. You and I have discussed this privately and we both agree that there are a few here who try to intimidate others with their verbosity and interrogation-like post shreddings.

 

[lark sparrow]

Let's look at what BDSM stands for: Bondage & Discipline, Dominance & submission, Sadism & Masochism. All of there are mind-involved of course, but they are also largely physical descriptors of actions/realities.

Let's use tennis as an example. Someone can love watching tennis on tv, they can read extensively about tennis - be able to discuss the finer points of volleys and serves from the knowledge they have gained reading. They can play a computer or online tennis game, against other opponents online and may become very skilled in the computer generated game of tennis. Perhaps they even talk to someone knowledgeable who actually plays tennis and they get tips and directives from them - they go home and pull out an old raquet and a few balls and they practice these points hitting the tennis ball back and forth against the garage door by themselves.

Is there anything wrong with it? No. Could it be a real and passionate hobby? Yes. Is it a valuable and valid expression of tennis as a state of mind? Sure.

Is it in the same realm as getting out on the court with another player and actually playing a game of tennis? No. "Tennis" could be held as "their life", but it doesn't fall into the collective reality or standard definition of "a tennis game".

If someone says to you, "Well, yes - I play tennis!" and you find out they mean all the above without having ever played on a court with someone in the flesh, there is going to be a gap in experience and definition...it doesn't make them any less of a person - one might even welcome them to a tennis match, but there may be a feeling that they have yet to experience the game of tennis in it's most basic and commonly held expression.

LarkS said, in part,

it's not the same thing. An online relationship or scene can be valid and valuable to an individual but that does not make it a real life relationship, scene or activity in the community.

LS, as usual, makes good and intelligent points. Yet, I don't think 'pink' was saying there is 'no difference' between an online encounter and a RL one. I think she said, in my words, there are some similarities, esp. in that one may prepare for the other, at least in some cases.

An example from a time past, might illustrate the issue: a young man and woman meet and get to know each other just a little, as schoolmates. The man leaves, goes and live a thousand miles away, and they begin a correspondence, share confidences, and fall in love; they hardly ever talk on the phone, because of the costs. They agree to meet and 'consummate' the relationship; they do, and continue the love affair in both modes, writing and occasional meeting.

Now, is there any reason to say the correspondence phase is 'less real' than the one before? I think not. Simply the mode of interaction has changed. For instance, in the present era, they might have a lot of cheap long distance calls, or IM-ing.

The point of Pink is that the phases can support each other; there is a resemblance, an important one.

Again, in the example above; in the correspondence phase, there is a disagreement, after they've become close: one says 'don't write any more'; the other doesn't and gets very depressed. That's pretty damn real.

That said, I would not choose the words of pink "bdsm is a state of mind", nor do I say, in the example, "love {or intimacy} is a state of mind". In my example and words, there are common states of mind in the correspondence and meeting phases, but the reality is in the interaction. "Online bdsm" is different from two people sitting in separate cities fantasizing about each other, based on pictures exchanged (or maybe just seen posted online). There is interaction [online], hence it's not all 'in the mind.'

J.

=========

LS in full:

I don't mean to be confrontational, but it seems to me that these two points actually lend themselves to the differences between real life and cyber/phone BDSM rather plainly.

You know - it's not okay to play real life because of x, y and z, but it is okay to play online. Why?

Because there IS a difference, and although most everything can be said to be in the mind... it's not the same thing. An online relationship or scene can be valid and valuable to an individual but that does not make it a real life relationship, scene or activity in the community.

Talking about BDSM here online the lines tend to become even more blurred... a quick study of words and nuances can fit in quite well and even lead without ever stepping a foot into real life BDSM. This is a community, but it's a cyber community talking about BDSM. Valuable and valid hopefully, but that doesn't make it a real life munch anymore than a whipping scene online is similar to being smacked by a real person and flogger while truly being bound physically.

Respect for what it is... sure... but it's not real life BDSM, if that is what we are discussing.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Catalina, my posts in no way single you out. I took the previous quote out of your post in agreement WITH you, not to point out a discrepency or a disagreement with you.

And let's talk about stifling this board and it's posters. You and I have discussed this privately and we both agree that there are a few here who try to intimidate others with their verbosity and interrogation-like post shreddings.

That's OK, I didn't mean you to think I thought that as I didn't. I am just angry for the first time and part of that is fuelled by what I see as a diminished forum due to the loss of many good posters with valued input, especially when I know some come back to lurk and check from time to time and leave again seeing that it is getting worse not better. Do we really want this to become a stat and just like all the other boards so notorious for their riveting posts like 'Wow I think I might tie my Dominant up while he is asleep and give him some of his own back....what do you all think?'? I think Lit BDSM has had a reputation for serious discussion as well as fun, and being a place where people can come to share and evolve into their own place in the lifestyle without fear. Lately that is not what it is always reflected or experienced. Maybe that is what people are more comfortable with...being one of the crowd.

Catalina

 

[A Desert Rose]

That's OK, I didn't mean you to think I thought that as I didn't. I am just angry for the first time and part of that is fuelled by what I see as a diminished forum due to the loss of many good posters with valued input, especially when I know some come back to lurk and check from time to time and leave again seeing that it is getting worse not better. Do we really want this to become a stat and just like all the other boards so notorious for their riveting posts like 'Wow I think I might tie my Dominant up while he is asleep and give him some of his own back....what do you all think?'? I think Lit BDSM has had a reputation for serious discussion as well as fun, and being a place where people can come to share and evolve into their own place in the lifestyle without fear. Lately that is not what it is always reflected or experienced. Maybe that is what people are more comfortable with...being one of the crowd.

Catalina

ditto to it all. ;-)

 

[s'lara]

There should never be censure of discussion, but there should always be the expectation to have your viewpoints challenged.

i think LS has captured the essence of the o/l vs. r/l and how the two may compare. i agree that one person's feelings and perceptions have validity, but there is a definite leap to r/l that bridges the gap.

C, we all know that it is often times hard to be truthful and clear without offending or causing ruffled feathers. It happens, and if you are prepared to make honest, "this is how i feel" statements, then you should be prepared for the positive reactions as well as the negative. i don't want you to feel attacked, but i also don't want to placate you with "i agree" and not expound further about what i thought of your posting. You most likely would be bored with verbal stroking as you are bored with the lack discussion on the board lately (as you mentioned before).

Yes, JM and WD as others have said the same, but it was your posting that i found to be indicative of r/l'ers irrirtation with o/l'ers who say their relationships are just as valid/equal. For the record, you did not say "better", "superior" or anything of that nature. Yet your use of phrases/terms "... hard to swallow" and "insulting" led me to make the deduction that you are outraged by the inference that o/l and r/l are the same. Again, just my impression.

Offend me? Not really, you are always entitled to your opinion and i respect that. Bottom line, we agreed. i just read outside the square of what you posted and found there to be more. Do i think you believe you are superior? Not at all. i found the post snooby, and said clearly that it does not make you snooby. Pride in what you have (your r/l relationship w/Francisco) does not make you an elitist, just proud. There isn't anything wrong with that in my book.

If there is to be an expectation not to have someone take exception to viewpoints expressed here on the forum, i think we're in for a real slow down. If it is expected that others will not form opinions of you based on what you write, then we should grind to halt now and call it a day. This is a hazard of presenting your thoughts for public review/responses. i'm dry, humorless, guarded and generally not given to heated/emotional debates and think my posts reflect that. i may also come across as cold and distant, but again, it is how i may be perceived from my posts. i realize this and try not to let it hinder what i say and how i say it. You shouldn't either C nor should anyone else who left (as you mentioned a few times). i think there's room for us all and in my opinion, i appreciate the differing viewpoints -- they tend to make me think.

lara

 

[catalina_francisco]

Pride in what you have (your r/l relationship w/Francisco) does not make you an elitist, just proud.

Is all semantics as even this statement does not reflect my view of my relationship. I do not have pride in the relationship, but I do regard myself blessed and indeed fortunate. And s' lara, as you know, I more often than not admire your posts and intellect. Is all about perception and where we gain that perception from.... a person's action and words or the way we interpret those words in relation to our own reality base. Are we going to say people with particular English accents are snobs, just because their accent resembles the Queen's? I hope not...same goes with judging by the way a person speaks, especialy when there are no swear words, blasphemy, or abusive statements. I admit it is not easy to know a person and how they live their life, but it is valid to look at the bigger picture of experience you have with that person and overall the feedback I get from people is far from considering me as you have from this thread. As I have also said, I have been in all these type relationships being discussed, at various times in my exploration and reality, so would come off as fairly stupid and arrogant to then condemn another for their position.

As to having views challenged, that is what I encourage overall on the board repeatedly, and not alone, (and I think I just made it clear I did not see validity in a thread of agreeing posts) and have shown through the past months to have been quite capable of handling whether they be postitive or negative and challenging my fair share. That does not mean singling out and judging a viewpoint as one thing when the words say another though, nor does it mean encouraging judging a person negatively when their sum of postings promote positiveness and growth of the opposite. Perhaps if I were male or not as wordy though it would be different as both WD and JM said in their 2-3 line posts the same as I, annoyance, not the same, etc., and it was deemed OK to speak that way, but I say similar and I am being snobbish. Maybe I am just getting too old, but then from what I hear so must a lot of other people on the board who are not all as old as I.

Catalina

 

[deepstare]

Ah yes, the online/real life problem...See for me, I know damn well that everything I've been learning and all the ideas I've had haven't been the result of my actual experiences. Its for this reason that I don't involve myself too much in Lit until I learn more in real life. I'll read up what you all have to say sometimes, but I'm not about to pretend that I know much.

 

[Quint]

Ah yes, the online/real life problem...See for me, I know damn well that everything I've been learning and all the ideas I've had haven't been the result of my actual experiences. Its for this reason that I don't involve myself too much in Lit until I learn more in real life. I'll read up what you all have to say sometimes, but I'm not about to pretend that I know much.

I disagree with the idea that simply reading about BDSM means you don't know much about it. I differentiate between knowledge and experience, which I would define as "applied knowledge," but simply because you're lacking in the latter does not mean you have nothing to contribute about the theory of BDSM. There is quite a bit of that here.

 

[deepstare]

Good thoughts Quint.

You're correct...reminds me of classroom learning vs. real world experience. What I'm concerned about is mistaking "knowledge" for "expectations" and/or "truth." I have a deep appreciation for theory (sometimes too much), but its extremely important to balance the real and the ideal. For now, I'm learning all I can about BDSM from an academic view.

 

[Pure]

Hi Lark S.,

You made an analogy regarding online activities:


Let's use tennis as an example. Someone can love watching tennis on tv, they can read extensively about tennis - be able to discuss the finer points of volleys and serves from the knowledge they have gained reading. They can play a computer or online tennis game, against other opponents online and may become very skilled in the computer generated game of tennis. Perhaps they even talk to someone knowledgeable who actually plays tennis and they get tips and directives from them - they go home and pull out an old raquet and a few balls and they practice these points hitting the tennis ball back and forth against the garage door by themselves.

Is there anything wrong with it? No. Could it be a real and passionate hobby? Yes. Is it a valuable and valid expression of tennis as a state of mind? Sure.

Is it in the same realm as getting out on the court with another player and actually playing a game of tennis? No. "Tennis" could be held as "their life", but it doesn't fall into the collective reality or standard definition of "a tennis game".

You liken online contact to an online tennis game, against either an opponent or the computer. And of course there is no actual game.

A recent discussion of the world poker championships mentioned the number of young players who'd played thousands of games against the computer; and who were using those skills in the poker tournament. For poker does not actually require cards, tables etc. Iow, for some, 'online poker skill' IS 'poker skill,' unlike your tennis example where 'online tennis skill' is not 'tennis skill [on the court]'.

"online activities' in isolation, or unconnected, may well have their peculiarities, but often they are continuous with other activities, and there's no easy way to say they are less 'actual'.

For instance, consider your Mistress giving you, in person, a direction to apply a clip to your nipple, or insert something somewhere. Now consider that she is a thousand miles away, and IMs you with the direction 'attach clip'. or 'insert x in y.' It's quite hard to claim your action in the first is actual, while the action in the second (at a distance), is not.

If you follow her directions in person, from the next room, on the telephone, on the computer screen typed, or by sound and video hookup, you are 'actually' following/complying/submitting (assuming no deception).

These cases do not at all resemble your 'online tennis' examples, since an observer would see the same actions under the different conditions.

regards,

J.

 

[Quint]

Hi, Pure.

I do believe I understand the point you are driving home and I also believe that I agree, to a certain point. Carrying out directions can carry the same D/s weight, regardless of if the dominant is physically present or has communicated the command in some other form.

However, I think there are several (optional?) aspects of a relationship that do not directly translate from written to physical. Any self-inflicted activity may be accurately replicated, both physically and mentally, sure, but when an actual partner IS involved, I personally can't find any basis for comparison. Again, a cyberpaddling (or a self-inflicted paddling under the statement "I am doing this to you") leaves no bruises and does not necessarily put the submissive in the mental state achieved with a partner. You didn't directly address this point, I realize, but I think that this is where the past two pages of conflict come in--online CAN be directly comparable, to a point. Care to argue if it extends past the point already described?

 

[Pure]

Hi Quint,

I think directed or guided fantasies are a different kettle of fish, as in, online, M says to S, "Imagine I'm whipping you."

Properly done, as by 'guided imagery' of a hypnotist, it can be powerful, but I agree, the 'whipping experience' with no whip is going to be different. (If a hypnotist says, "this item is red hot," and it's just a pencil that touches you, you might not only feel the burn, but get a red mark.)

However a memory might be more powerful, as in "Remember how it felt last time I was whipping you (irl)."

I agree some things are hard to do to oneself; I always thought it awkward how the flaggelant priests whip their backs.

OTOH, (under direction) to present ones nipple and whack it with a wooden spoon is quite feasible.

But yes, there are a range of activities that are not possible alone, though a dom/me could direct a stand-in to do various things to you. I.e., "Whip her butt."

That said, the real question is the substance of what is possible; could there be satisfaction, intense sensation, fulfillment, intimacy.

I could not say a rule, but the case of phone sex, esp. with people who've been together, allows a fair range of response and a degree of fulfillment that may apply to SM online interactions; actual events (orgasms) triggered by other actual events (words uttered and heard, and imaginings ('you are in my arms, etc...).

But no it aint quite like getting laid.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Ah yes, the online/real life problem...See for me, I know damn well that everything I've been learning and all the ideas I've had haven't been the result of my actual experiences. Its for this reason that I don't involve myself too much in Lit until I learn more in real life. I'll read up what you all have to say sometimes, but I'm not about to pretend that I know much.

I think reading about it is important. Discussing what perceptions you have with or without real experience is equally important. Why? Because apart from adding to the discussion and having valid input that often is lost once real experiences come into play, you also allow yourself and others to define their needs and desires before jumping in too deep without looking. Is all a balance and leads to informed choices of which I am a huge supporter as opposed to uninformed. So please continue to read and post here.

Catalina

 

[lark sparrow]

Much of it is going to come down to individual preference/need/possibilities. I chose tennis rather than poker for a reason, in that tennis is a more physical and active partnered game.

If one is following directives online or on the telephone, yes, they are actually doing said physical activity, alone physically (though they are controlling speed, strength, etc. even in trying to comply 100%, with self-preservation or uncertainty there are some things one cannot fully do to themselves, at least not immediately, absolutely as intended, and there are other things that are simply too easy to do to oneself, such as exactly how and in what position a clamp is placed to make it most comfy in it’s painfulness.) Ever try tickling yourself?

The following is where my personal preference/need/possibilities come into play and color my opinion - it is not analogous to actually engaging in the identical activity with another person in the flesh. Imagination can fill in a lot of gaps and much distance, but it is not real life, as in face-to-face, skin-to-skin, and physically controlled by another’s hand.

If one has no need or no possibility of this kind of exchange then online may be a far better reality, but speaking personally, it becomes a very poor substitute for the “real thing” after time. The apples and oranges premise mentioned by a few on this thread is very fitting. Few things are black and white – there is a lot of gray area – but to ignore or avoid the mutual corporal aspects and simply call BDSM a state of mind that can be fulfilled through typing or talking or following directions remotely seems lacking in the possible depth of full personal experience (to me). Again, back to personal preferences, needs and potentials – all expressions valid and valuable if desired as such, but not necessarily equivalent or one in the same.

Hi Lark S.,

You made an analogy regarding online activities:


Let's use tennis as an example. Someone can love watching tennis on tv, they can read extensively about tennis - be able to discuss the finer points of volleys and serves from the knowledge they have gained reading. They can play a computer or online tennis game, against other opponents online and may become very skilled in the computer generated game of tennis. Perhaps they even talk to someone knowledgeable who actually plays tennis and they get tips and directives from them - they go home and pull out an old raquet and a few balls and they practice these points hitting the tennis ball back and forth against the garage door by themselves.

Is there anything wrong with it? No. Could it be a real and passionate hobby? Yes. Is it a valuable and valid expression of tennis as a state of mind? Sure.

Is it in the same realm as getting out on the court with another player and actually playing a game of tennis? No. "Tennis" could be held as "their life", but it doesn't fall into the collective reality or standard definition of "a tennis game".

You liken online contact to an online tennis game, against either an opponent or the computer. And of course there is no actual game.

A recent discussion of the world poker championships mentioned the number of young players who'd played thousands of games against the computer; and who were using those skills in the poker tournament. For poker does not actually require cards, tables etc. Iow, for some, 'online poker skill' IS 'poker skill,' unlike your tennis example where 'online tennis skill' is not 'tennis skill [on the court]'.

"online activities' in isolation, or unconnected, may well have their peculiarities, but often they are continuous with other activities, and there's no easy way to say they are less 'actual'.

For instance, consider your Mistress giving you, in person, a direction to apply a clip to your nipple, or insert something somewhere. Now consider that she is a thousand miles away, and IMs you with the direction 'attach clip'. or 'insert x in y.' It's quite hard to claim your action in the first is actual, while the action in the second (at a distance), is not.

If you follow her directions in person, from the next room, on the telephone, on the computer screen typed, or by sound and video hookup, you are 'actually' following/complying/submitting (assuming no deception).

These cases do not at all resemble your 'online tennis' examples, since an observer would see the same actions under the different conditions.

regards,

J.

 

[Pure]

Hi Deepstare,

Ah yes, the online/real life problem...See for me, I know damn well that everything I've been learning and all the ideas I've had haven't been the result of my actual experiences. Its for this reason that I don't involve myself too much in Lit until I learn more in real life. I'll read up what you all have to say sometimes, but I'm not about to pretend that I know much.

I think reading, esp. of the 'right things'--stories, essays, autobiogs, can be very valuable. It, and reflection help give depth to experience. You'll find serious reading is not that common, even among authors. There is an old saying about a person who's had 40 experience, say, teaching, but really it's one year's experience repeated 40 times, for those whose mind is set.

Stories and fiction can teach, I think. My project was to directly experience as many of those things as possible. Interesting too, in that the 'real thing'-- just like 'normal sex'-- is not like the books. "Fire" in genitals and gallons of semen is fantasy more than reality. I hope you learn from lurking. Welcome.

There is, around here, a list of autobios of people into BDSM that I and some others compiled. I have a preference for first person stuff.

J.

 

[MissTaken]

I think reading about it is important. Discussing what perceptions you have with or without real experience is equally important. Why? Because apart from adding to the discussion and having valid input that often is lost once real experiences come into play, you also allow yourself and others to define their needs and desires before jumping in too deep without looking. Is all a balance and leads to informed choices of which I am a huge supporter as opposed to uninformed. So please continue to read and post here.

Catalina

Yes, read, read, read!

As for the issue of on line versus real life, my own journey began on line with the intent of making it real time. It happened that way and while on line and on the phone He wsa everything I thought I could possibly want and vice versa, in real time, we didn't clique.

As for the original point of the thread, maybe I was harsh or was misunderstood in my first post or first reading of her first post....

I completely support more respect shown between posters at lit, regardless of how they are proceeding or practicing the lifestyle and regardless of how "serious" their kink is percieved by others.

I know many who have many years of real time feel that on line D/s mocks their own lifestyle.

I don't believe that is the case.

I do however, believe that on line D/s and the internet are playing a big role in mainstreaming BDSM and possibly helping to find more tolerance and understanding of us "freaks" in our lives outside the net.

I also believe that exploring BDSM on line can assist some who are interested, but unsure. They can explore their fantasies without causing harm, they can explore the ideologies and philosophies without getting into a real life commited relationship before knowing with some certainty this is what they want and potentially, will find their happiness, in or out of D/s without causing major trauma and heartache for themselves and another.