Does/should motivation for a partner's kink matter?

[Netzach]

You know, I like pussy plenty, and that just does so not work for me.

 

[half_full]

While I note that half_full has responded to others, and not my post, I am gong to quote somberReality here.

She shows perfectly the core reason behind why I do what I do. Why? Because what I do causes this reaction in her. And what she posted? Yeah, it got me grinning evilly and licking my lips just a little bit.

She likes what she saw, and I like how she responded. Everything else is window dressing.

*turns attention back to somberReality*

Come to Papa.

Homburg, I have every intention of responding to your post. You deserve an intelligent and thoughtful response, and I certainly intend to give it when I can get a little break here this afternoon.

 

[half_full]

Monica already responded to this point and, as usual, knocked out most of what I would say, and did so in a more articulate and readable fashion. My turgid and obtuse prose leaves something to be desired. Still, there are a few clarifications I feel are needed.

I did respond to most of what you and Monica thought objectionable in a reply to her post. I hope I cleared up a few things there. I hope to clear up a few more things here. Please accept this post in the spirit in which it is intended.

I neither stated, nor implied, that you were a prude, nor uptight. You've done a better job of that yourself with your own sig. I was simply suggesting a bit of immersion. In other words, come on in, the water's fine.

You are right, you only referred to yourself as a prude but the inference was there. You also said maybe I wouldn't be so uptight if I got out there and saw things in person. Look, I wasn't offended by what you said. I was only trying to tell you, and everyone else who has suggested the same thing, that I don't do casual encounters. I am not in a position at the moment to seek a long term partner. Munches are not my style. I am horribly uncomfortable in social settings like that. It's just not my thing. I don't do nightclubs and bars for the same reason.
As for my sig, it is a message of understanding and tolerance. I don't get the prude reference.

Please don't take this as insulting, but I see you dancing around something because it frightens you deeply, and the path you have chosen as exploration (ie reading stories) presents said something in the most extreme light possible overall...snip

I am not at all insulted, and there is some truth to what you say, but what frightens me is something I have to work out for myself. My own personal demons were never meant to be a topic for this thread. I can't communicate to others what I barely understand myself, and it frustrates me how many people believe that experimenting will cure me.
Reading stories is not the path to exploration I've chosen and I hope I cleared that up in my response to Monica.

Why? Serious question. Why did you not believe me? What reason do I have to lie? Do what?!? Reread my posts. My father was criminally abused. My grandfather was a vicious bastard towards my dad, not me. I made clear in my posts that I had a normal childhood and was not abused. No darkness here, sorry. I feel like you are guilty of seeing what you are looking for regardless of what is being said. No darkness. No abuse. No mommy conflicts. No work conflicts. No powerlessness in life. Nothing. I just like to cause pain.

I owe you an apology on this one. I stand by what I said, but it didn't at all come out the way I meant it. When you asked me why I was alarmed that you didn't have abuse, neglect, mommy issues, etc in your background, I should have been more clear in my response. I was alarmed because you stated that you were a normal, every day average guy who for no reason just gets off on hitting people.(paraphrased) That is what alarmed me and that is the statement I didn't believe. Not because I thought you were lying about not having past abuse in your life, but because I don't believe that people engage in these activities for no reason. I believe there is always a reason, whether we acknowledge it or not. The only reason I felt comfortable saying that I didn't believe your statements, is because I sensed you didn't really believe it either. You said it bothered you that you didn't know, you were trying to figure it out, you read the "Delving the psyche of sadists" thread for guidance (all paraphrased here) so I assumed you were doing a little introspection. When I made the comment later that you had "redeemed" yourself by admitting to some "horrific darkness" in your past, it was not at all what I was trying to say. Many people read that as "Ah ha! I knew there had to be abuse in his past," when in fact I meant it as "Ah ha! I knew there had to be a reason." Do you see the difference? If you had said "I watched my crusty uncle's German dungeon porn when I was 12," or "I was abducted by aliens at birth," I still would have thought you had redeemed yourself because those reasons are better than no reason. It's starting to really piss me off how many people on this thread keep assuming that I think every reason for BDSM behavior has to be related to abuse, when I have never said that and don't personally believe it. Please understand, I am not trying to goad you in to self examination. I am only giving my own personal opinion because you asked for it.

I'm going to avoid most of this paragraph, as it is based on erroneous readings of my rather clear post. I will say that the core of it is bothersome. You won't accept a sadist that enjoys causing pain 'just because'? You would be happier with someone that dresses it only in the trappings of discipline?

No. I said the exact opposite. I said I would hold them both to the same standard of introspection. I think you misread it. I'd like to sideline here for a bit because I took alot of shit from you, Monica and others over my personal level of comfort in a Doms ability to articulate his needs and desires.
A while back (few months maybe) JMohegan got in to a contentious discussion with a Master over his 'need' to punish his slave with a crop. The Master kept saying he 'needed' to do it and JMohegan kept challenging him to explain why. I didn't see anyone in this forum cry "You can't ask him that! He doesn't need to give a reason! He can because he wants to!" or any such dribble. I don't recall JM looking for a specific answer (but I could be wrong), I think he was just trying to get the guy to articulate this 'need'. That is exactly what I would require of a potential partner in order to build trust. Someone who can articulate what they need, why they need it, what they get from it.

I am honest. Period. I do what I do because I love what I do, and because the women who have willingly placed themselves under my hand like how I do it. If it bothers you, that's cool. I don't expect that you and I will ever meet. If my style of thinking, or my particular build of sadist bothers you, hey, that's cool too. But don't confuse lack of deep explanation for lack of control. To be frank, I find what you are implying to be rather deeply insulting, and I have a hard time accepting pronouncements such as "be a good sadist" from someone who won't even attempt to do more than fantasise and read about what I do every day.

As for the rest, I do believe that if we don't understand our impulses, urges and desires, they will control us, as opposed to us controlling them. That was a general statement which applies to many people, not just sadists. It wasn't meant at all to suggest that you are out of control. I have no knowledge of your personal life and affairs. Your "particular build of sadist" does not bother me in the least because I don't know anything about it and I am sorry if that's what you took away from my statements. My PERSONAL belief that knowing one's self is key to control is a standard I set for myself and potential partners, and no one else. I am surprised that so many were offended by it. Lastly, the "be a good sadist" line wasn't a directive or admonishment, it was a tongue-in-cheek expression I've heard since childhood. I realize that if you didn't recognize it, you could have easily interpreted it as something else. Sometimes the meaning behind statements gets lost in the written word. Again, I am sorry as it wasn't meant to offend.

 

[DeservingBitch]

First, unless you are able to believe that there can be a neat, clear, and simple explanation for sexual desires, needs, and interests, I think that you are setting up yourself for failure in asking the questions you ask. Myself - along with most specialists and scholars on the issue - I think that a complex, fluid, and interrelated combination of socialization, social and familial context, personal history, personal subjectivity, and a touch of this magical 'je-ne-sais-quoi' all contribute in the making of a person's sexuality. Which is to say that there's no way to know for sure.

But like a lot of other things in life, this desire for 'pure knowledge' that you seem to present often comes from a lack of faith and trust in oneself: because at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if you can 'know' for sure what the other person is about. What matters is that you trust that you can make the best decisions for yourself, and that you trust that you'll be OK, even when things turns shitty.

Finally, I'll just repeat a question I've asked you in my first (and so far only) comment in this thread: why do you focus on motivations for BDSM? why not focusing on your 'vanilla' needs/desires (such as being hugged or gently kissed by a partner)? From where i'm sitting, you seem to be assuming that non-BDSM (or more generally non-kinky) sexuality is 'unmotivated' and/or that the motivations for non-BDSM sexuality are somehow necessarily healthy, normal, and 'sane' and therefore do not require questioning.

 

[EmpressFi]

First, unless you are able to believe that there can be a neat, clear, and simple explanation for sexual desires, needs, and interests, I think that you are setting up yourself for failure in asking the questions you ask. Myself - along with most specialists and scholars on the issue - I think that a complex, fluid, and interrelated combination of socialization, social and familial context, personal history, personal subjectivity, and a touch of this magical 'je-ne-sais-quoi' all contribute in the making of a person's sexuality. Which is to say that there's no way to know for sure.

But like a lot of other things in life, this desire for 'pure knowledge' that you seem to present often comes from a lack of faith and trust in oneself: because at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if you can 'know' for sure what the other person is about. What matters is that you trust that you can make the best decisions for yourself, and that you trust that you'll be OK, even when things turns shitty.

Finally, I'll just repeat a question I've asked you in my first (and so far only) comment in this thread: why do you focus on motivations for BDSM? why not focusing on your 'vanilla' needs/desires (such as being hugged or gently kissed by a partner)? From where i'm sitting, you seem to be assuming that non-BDSM (or more generally non-kinky) sexuality is 'unmotivated' and/or that the motivations for non-BDSM sexuality are somehow necessarily healthy, normal, and 'sane' and therefore do not require questioning.

QFE *applauds*

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[Quint]

.............

 

[Homburg]

I did respond to most of what you and CutieMouse thought objectionable in a reply to her post. I hope I cleared up a few things there. I hope to clear up a few more things here. Please accept this post in the spirit in which it is intended.

*nod*

You are right, you only referred to yourself as a prude but the inference was there. You also said maybe I wouldn't be so uptight if I got out there and saw things in person. Look, I wasn't offended by what you said. I was only trying to tell you, and everyone else who has suggested the same thing, that I don't do casual encounters. I am not in a position at the moment to seek a long term partner. Munches are not my style. I am horribly uncomfortable in social settings like that. It's just not my thing. I don't do nightclubs and bars for the same reason.

I don't do bars and clubs either. The problem here is that you don't seem to do anything. You sound like you are beating yourself up over, well, nothing. If you can't have a long-term relationship, you won't do casual play, and you won't go and watch public play, why are you wasting the mental energy on discussing motivations that are apparently too weak to actually motivate you?

As for my sig, it is a message of understanding and tolerance. I don't get the prude reference.

Staring open-mouthed is not an indicator of tolerance and understanding. Your sig sounds like "Holy shit, you are a freak, but I'll defend your right to be freaky."

I feel so very validated and understood.

I am not at all insulted, and there is some truth to what you say, but what frightens me is something I have to work out for myself. My own personal demons were never meant to be a topic for this thread. I can't communicate to others what I barely understand myself, and it frustrates me how many people believe that experimenting will cure me.

BDSM is pretty much all about your personal demons, and those demons are exactly what we are discussing more often than not. When you walk into a discussion on motivations, expect to talk about your personal demons, ESPECIALLY if you expect others to talk about their demons with you.

And noone is saying that experimentation will 'cure' you. They are generally saying it will give you precious experience, and allow you to make more informed decisions. Let's face it, you can read a description on how Rhubarb Pie tastes, but do you really comprehend it until you have a bite?

In my case, I wasn't even suggesting experimentation. I was suggesting that you go somewhere and watch it happening. At least at that point you will have a better idea of what the reality of it looks like. BDSM fiction can be really awful stuff.

Reading stories is not the path to exploration I've chosen and I hope I cleared that up in my response to CutieMouse.

Not really. You said that you read stories, read books, and read message boards. You only recently started posting here (from what I've seen). So you've read, read, read, and just now posted. You aren't even keeping the topic at arm's reach, you are making sure there's a wall of paper between you and us. So, no, not really. You've described someone who is willing to read, and that's it.

I'm a reader and researcher, and I look into things before I jump into them. I am uncomfortable and twitchy in social settings (less so recently), and am/was VERY uncomfortable in bars and nightclubs. I spent too long working bar and club security, rousting drunken assholes out of those places, and it means I'm always expecting trouble whenever I'm in that situation. It's exceedingly difficult for me to relax under such circumstances. I am not a party person, and find those sort of social functions draining, regardless of how social and outgoing I might be.

Then I went to a social put on by the group we've been going to munches with. Here I am surrounded by some blatantly freaky people, folks with a lot more experience than I have, and who are involved in things that make even me cringe. Know what? I've never felt more comfortable and at home in is social setting. I was relaxed, happy, and didn't feel tense or aggressive.

So I was worried about it before I went, did my research and tried to know what to expect. Eventually, I had to just decide to take the plunge and go, not give a damn about it. Had good fun too. Some fun might not kill you, half_full, and you might have some if you get out. That's all people are saying.

I owe you an apology on this one. I stand by what I said, but it didn't at all come out the way I meant it. When you asked me why I was alarmed that you didn't have abuse, neglect, mommy issues, etc in your background, I should have been more clear in my response. I was alarmed because you stated that you were a normal, every day average guy who for no reason just gets off on hitting people.(paraphrased) That is what alarmed me and that is the statement I didn't believe. Not because I thought you were lying about not having past abuse in your life, but because I don't believe that people engage in these activities for no reason. I believe there is always a reason, whether we acknowledge it or not. The only reason I felt comfortable saying that I didn't believe your statements, is because I sensed you didn't really believe it either. You said it bothered you that you didn't know, you were trying to figure it out, you read the "Delving the psyche of sadists" thread for guidance (all paraphrased here) so I assumed you were doing a little introspection. When I made the comment later that you had "redeemed" yourself by admitting to some "horrific darkness" in your past, it was not at all what I was trying to say. Many people read that as "Ah ha! I knew there had to be abuse in his past," when in fact I meant it as "Ah ha! I knew there had to be a reason." Do you see the difference?

No. You acted as if I'd admitted to some "horrific darkness". Those are strong words. Tell me where I said, or inferred, that, and I'll understand.

As to me worrying, and wondering if there was something suppressed, that is not some sort of chink in my facade. That is me being a reasonable chap with an inquisitive and sceptical mind. I do not take things purely at face value and work at understanding everything about myself that I possibly can.

I started noticing the dangerous side of my personality well before I had any sort of rational understanding of what my father had gone through as a child. I never once saw my grandfather take any violent/abuse action towards anyone. I was never abused. I never saw abuse, or even neglect, in my neighbourhoods growing up. Aside from the fact that we moved a lot, I had a frikken Norman Rockwell childhood.

No personal darkness, sorry. And, as I said, I was aware of my own inner darkness well before I knew what had happened to my father. Wiring, period.

If you had said "I watched my crusty uncle's German dungeon porn when I was 12," or "I was abducted by aliens at birth," I still would have thought you had redeemed yourself because those reasons are better than no reason. It's starting to really piss me off how many people on this thread keep assuming that I think every reason for BDSM behavior has to be related to abuse, when I have never said that and don't personally believe it. Please understand, I am not trying to goad you in to self examination. I am only giving my own personal opinion because you asked for it.

.... Why do you keep saying "no reason" when I have stated a reason? "Because I like it" is a reason. As DeservingBitch said, do you question why you like vanilla loving? I am wired to like this stuff, and my gal is wired to like her end of it, period. We both get a thrill from it. Done.

Speaking of her, what is her problem? Wherefrom does her issue arise? She was raised similar to myself, two parent household, no abuse, no weirdness, no mother/father issues, well-adjusted, and well-educated. Yet she likes it when my big, scary, dangerous self hurts her, makes her cry, holds her down and does nasty things to her. Are you going to question her motives?

No. I said the exact opposite. I said I would hold them both to the same standard of introspection. I think you misread it.

You've said slightly different things at different times. Unfortunately I've not got the time this morning to dig through 6 pages of posts to find the quote I was thinking of. You'd basically said you would be more comfortable with a given type of Dom. Later, you said you would ask the same questions. Not incompatible responses, but still the previous statement left that impression.

I'd like to sideline here for a bit because I took alot of shit from you, CutieMouse and others over my personal level of comfort in a Doms ability to articulate his needs and desires.
A while back (few months maybe) JMohegan got in to a contentious discussion with a Master over his 'need' to punish his slave with a crop. The Master kept saying he 'needed' to do it and JMohegan kept challenging him to explain why. I didn't see anyone in this forum cry "You can't ask him that! He doesn't need to give a reason! He can because he wants to!" or any such dribble. I don't recall JM looking for a specific answer (but I could be wrong), I think he was just trying to get the guy to articulate this 'need'.

JM does that a lot. He really digs motivation, and has some wonderful insight into it. I appreciate that, and also get into motivation, but I do so from a different viewpoint, and for different reasons. I want to understand her motivation so I can better know what buttons to press. I want to understand my motivations so I can know what situations to avoid. Beyond that, I consider both to be a bit too ephemeral to pin down strongly. It is an epistemological question, and one of the great quandaries of philosophy throughout the ages - How do I know what I know? What is truth?

No one is likely to call JM on it because he presents himself well, and is not particularly judgemental (unless it really needs it). JM also gets out there and does. He isn't reading about this lifestyle. He is out in his backyard with a bullwhip practicing on the scarecrow, improving his skills. It lends him a little bit of credibility, y'know? It's something that you would do well to earn before coming across as a wee bit judgmental.

That is exactly what I would require of a potential partner in order to build trust. Someone who can articulate what they need, why they need it, what they get from it.

If that is your only criteria, you will fall prey to the smooth talkers that CutieMouse talked about. There's quite a bit more to the equation than simply being able to give an explanation of motives that you want to hear. The really smooth types will pick up on what makes you tick and just tell you what you want to hear.

As for the rest, I do believe that if we don't understand our impulses, urges and desires, they will control us, as opposed to us controlling them. That was a general statement which applies to many people, not just sadists. It wasn't meant at all to suggest that you are out of control. I have no knowledge of your personal life and affairs. Your "particular build of sadist" does not bother me in the least because I don't know anything about it and I am sorry if that's what you took away from my statements.

Consider this your first bit of real education in how my type of sadist is built then. Even if you don't care for it, it is useful info.

My PERSONAL belief that knowing one's self is key to control is a standard I set for myself and potential partners, and no one else. I am surprised that so many were offended by it.

I have said "Know Thyself" numerous times here and there. And? Knowing that my wiring is a certain way, knowing that I like the noises she makes when I spank her ass, knowing what, specifically, turns my crank and hers, that is useful self-knowledge. None if it necessarily equates to self-control though.

I don't have to know why I like to cause pain to control my ruge to cause pain. I just have to control that urge. That is all that is required for self-control. Do you understand why you want to have sex with a particular someone (talking physical urge here)? Really understand it in specific ways that do not boil down to talking about biological imperative to breed? Even if you don't, can you resist the urge to strip and fuck? Self-control is just teling yourself "No." Once more, I say that everything else is window dressing.

Lastly, the "be a good sadist" line wasn't a directive or admonishment, it was a tongue-in-cheek expression I've heard since childhood. I realize that if you didn't recognize it, you could have easily interpreted it as something else. Sometimes the meaning behind statements gets lost in the written word. Again, I am sorry as it wasn't meant to offend.

*shrug* I still don't get the tongue-in-cheek part. I am a good sadist. I abide by consensuality, and don't cause lasting harm unintentionally. In the BDSM world, that is a good sadist.

Then again, the term 'good sadist' is not an oxymoron in this world. Perhaps that is the disconnect. In my world, that phrase is normal, and you aren't in my world. You are reading about it though. Better than nothing, I guess.

Hey, if you are ever on my side of the country, give me a holler. I'll sit down with you in some cheery public place. You can look me in the eye and ask any question you want. Even an hour or so talking with someone over coffee is better than just reading about it.

 

[Homburg]

Or let's even take it away from the realm of the sexual to other "edgy," potentially-damaging, even potentially-lethal activities that people enjoy. Like extreme sports. If you ask the average snowboarder why they enjoy cruising down a vertical slope with nothing to protect them but a pair of goggles and some snowpants, the answer will probably be similar to "I love the rush I get." Is there trust involved? Absolutely. Is there risk involved? You bet. Could some of them have had bad childhood experiences that left them with the need to push themselves to the edge in order to feel alive? Well, sure--but that goes for any walk of life, any hobby, any person. And is definitely NOT the reason that all (or most) snowboarders do it.

This is a good point. I regularly fuck myself up riding trails on my mountain bike, and I love every second of it. And if you asked me why I did it, you'd get similar vague blandishments that all boil down to "I love the rush I get."

If you want a cerebral discussion on motivation in this arena, ask me why I love Kinbaku/Shibari. If you want to know why I like to spank, well...

 

[Netzach]

Not my style either, and I'm not suggesting you start doing volunteer work as a greeter for your local munch or anything... I'm saying making a commitment to sitting down, having a diet coke, and staying 30 minutes won't kill you, and might actually be benificial in some way... another thing to consider, BTW, is that as a sumbissive - you often get the "pleasure" of doing things that aren't your style, aren't your thing, and make you horribly uncomfortable...

This is exactly what I was trying to articulate.

 

[Quint]

.............

 

[DeservingBitch]

Sandwiches? Do tell.

 

[Homburg]

Sandwiches? Do tell.

I agree. Please share, Quint.

 

[half_full]

Wow.

First of all, if I'd spent the 7 or 8 years before meeting the man I married reading blogs, I would not call that diving into reality. No insult intended, but reading what people say about themselves and say about what they do is versus actually meeting them, watching them, and talking to their faces off the record about S/M D/s for even a short time are two different things. Even with no duplicitous intent, how my life actually IS and the way anyone presents and edits themselves in writing about SM, distilled from the rest of their life, one is going to get a rather distorted picture.

Second, I don't like when people write off giant chunks of whatever a lot of other people suggest they consider. "I know a munch and actually meeting some people may be entertaining but it doesn't apply to me" isn't far off from the Tops who REFUSE to have a toy used on them by anyone else - it's fine if you want to be that way, but honestly, it trips my wires that this person's too insecure and immature to try something before deciding where they stand on it.

I don't look for that in either submissive or dominant partners, for myself.

Every single suggestion in this thread has been met with some reason why it's not appropriate for you, you can't do it, you aren't in a position to do it - I don't think Monica did anything unfair in noticing this. Everything in life is a choice. I didn't sit down and decide "I'll just stay with this vanilla relationship until I've established myself and then when I'm comfortable I'll jump ship and really live my life." I decided what I needed and I made it happen. Well, I wasn't THAT brave, it wasn't that clean, but I did make it happen, and I did know what I needed. I even had some really shitty experiences along the way - and my life didn't end. I kissed frogs, as it were. You appear, for fear of even MEETING a frog let alone kissing it, to dismiss the idea of dealing with people beyond being subjects of inquiry.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions about me in this forum is that I am consciously choosing study over reality because I am otherwise too prudish, uptight, scared (pyl) to put myself out there. That is simply not the case and I am sorry if I have given people that impression. I spent 3 yrs reading about S/M D/s while I was in a committed vanilla relationship, and it took all of those 3 yrs for me to realize I no longer wanted to be in a vanilla relationship. So I ended it. There was no reason to talk to people or get out there or experiment during that time. One of the things I learned about myself during that 'study' phase is that I have many years of religious and social brainwashing to undue. It's the kind of brainwashing that keeps one locked in a very small cage or at the very least tethered to a very short leash (no BSDM pun intended). So I have some fears about entering into a D/s based relationship. Some of those fears are legitimate and some are irrational. Much of that I need to work out for myself. Would it be nice to be able to talk to and interact with people in the process? Sure it would. But I chose to participate in a forum like this instead because it is the most practical next step for me right now. In the past year, I've spent 10 months commuting from Tx to Ca every single week except for holidays. That doesn't leave alot of time for socializing or exploring relationships. What you and others see as excuses for not taking more action are to me very legitimate concerns that must be dealt with in a practical manner. Some people have offered suggestions without a real appreciation for the problem. I try to be polite without being overly dismissive, but that approach just seems to get me in even more trouble. Some of the emotional turmoil I'm dealing with is very private and I expect few in this forum could actually relate to it. I have never wanted to make those things topics for discussion in this thread. As for munches, my schedule makes them completely impractical for now, BUT I woudn't do them anyway. It is just not my thing. That is not to say that I would never do it, but right now, no. My position does not come from a place of insecurity or immaturity. Is that really such a difficult thing for people to accept?
You are right, life is a choice. And I am making those choices in a manner that is most practical for me. I do know what I need, and want, and what kind of changes in my life, both personal and professional, have to happen for me to get there.

Can you possibly imagine why people in a community might not be elated when someone who has spent some years reading furiously comes in and decides that it's OK for them to slap a "disordered, but that's OK" label on them and their behavior when they don't see themselves this way?

I don't particularly like labels myself. It is not my preferred form of communication. But when I find myself constantly being misquoted and misinterpreted, I will use very blunt and direct language to make my point. I don't ever use labels to judge or criticize. Labels are only as harmful as the intent behind them.

Most contemporary therapy takes the stance that a behavior is a problem when it affects the subject's life in a negative and persistant way ie: if YOU think it's a problem, it's a problem. I tend to agree with my shrink on this one in regard to the way I feel when I make someone cringe or flinch or react to pain, not you.

I don't think what you or anyone does is a problem. I am only concerned with another's behavior if it impacts me directly. I have no idea why you think I have a problem with your behavior. I have never been anything but occasionally inquisitive and always respectful in any of my communications with you.

Third, guess what - "erotic humiliation", candle wax, simply bondage - all of these things have the potential to do great harm. Every last one, not just the things you find edgy.

Everyone has a different level of comfort and tolerance for the various and many activities within the spectrum of BDSM. Each person has to decide for themselves what is 'edgy' based on their own personal comfort zone and set of experiences. Why does my own personal standard of 'edgy' bother so many, especially when I don't apply that standard to anyone but me?

 

[Quint]

.............

 

[Netzach]

Well, if you and DB insist!

T likes his sammiches plain and dry. Hunk of meat, slice or two of cheese, boring bread. Plate it. Eat it. That's satisfaction to him. Me, I can't eat that sammich. Bores me to tears. I get my asiago cheese bread, pile it high with sundried-tomato-crusted turkey, some smoked gouda, spread it with mayo, add a couple leaves of romaine and slices of tomato, and THAT'S a sammich. It is, in fact, a whammy of a sammy.

Why can't I be satisfied with his sammich? He looks at my sammich and says, "What do you need all those things for?" It distracts him, doesn't add to the experience. He doesn't enjoy it, and therefore doesn't get it. But to me, it's the most satisfying and I think his looks plain, boring, and frankly a little wimpy. (Fortunately that's where the analogy ends!)

Again, it works more for the "why isn't normal sex good enough for you?" threads than the "why do you want to cause genuine distress to your partner?" but I've already offered my views and been ignored. Thus I leave to eat my sammich.

But there has to be something wrong with you to want that much asiago.

 

[JMohegan]

Well, if you and DB insist!

T likes his sammiches plain and dry. Hunk of meat, slice or two of cheese, boring bread. Plate it. Eat it. That's satisfaction to him. Me, I can't eat that sammich. Bores me to tears. I get my asiago cheese bread, pile it high with sundried-tomato-crusted turkey, some smoked gouda, spread it with mayo, add a couple leaves of romaine and slices of tomato, and THAT'S a sammich. It is, in fact, a whammy of a sammy.

Why can't I be satisfied with his sammich? He looks at my sammich and says, "What do you need all those things for?" It distracts him, doesn't add to the experience. He doesn't enjoy it, and therefore doesn't get it. But to me, it's the most satisfying and I think his looks plain, boring, and frankly a little wimpy. (Fortunately that's where the analogy ends!)

Again, it works more for the "why isn't normal sex good enough for you?" threads than the "why do you want to cause genuine distress to your partner?" but I've already offered my views and been ignored. Thus I leave to eat my sammich.

Clearly you were force-fed jalapeños as a toddler.

Or something.

 

[Homburg]

Well, if you and DB insist!

T likes his sammiches plain and dry. Hunk of meat, slice or two of cheese, boring bread. Plate it. Eat it. That's satisfaction to him. Me, I can't eat that sammich. Bores me to tears. I get my asiago cheese bread, pile it high with sundried-tomato-crusted turkey, some smoked gouda, spread it with mayo, add a couple leaves of romaine and slices of tomato, and THAT'S a sammich. It is, in fact, a whammy of a sammy.

Why can't I be satisfied with his sammich? He looks at my sammich and says, "What do you need all those things for?" It distracts him, doesn't add to the experience. He doesn't enjoy it, and therefore doesn't get it. But to me, it's the most satisfying and I think his looks plain, boring, and frankly a little wimpy. (Fortunately that's where the analogy ends!)

Again, it works more for the "why isn't normal sex good enough for you?" threads than the "why do you want to cause genuine distress to your partner?" but I've already offered my views and been ignored. Thus I leave to eat my sammich.

I, uh, could deal with one of those sandwiches myself. The tasty one. Not the dry, boring one. Can we add some maple-cured bacon though? It gets me hot.

Edit: And, like a dillweed, I forgot to mention how apt I find this analogy. Bravo =)

 

[Netzach]

Sometimes I really do want pbj white bread.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Yesterday, I was actually craving a white-bread-kraft-single-'cheese' sandwich. Is there something wrong with me?

 

[Homburg]

Plain white bread? Yeach. Bread has got to have something going for it to get my interest, sorry. A nice cracked wheat, a sourdough, good rye, something. White bread just doesn't do it for me.

 

[Netzach]

well it's not a regular event...

 

[Homburg]

Sure, but I just can't take the stuff. Not a regular event for me would be pumpernickel, or banana bread. White bread? dang, might as well just eat the bag it came in. Probably have as much taste. I need more of a thrill on my tastebuds to get my saliva flowing, yanno?

 

[Netzach]

Sure, but I just can't take the stuff. Not a regular event for me would be pumpernickel, or banana bread. White bread? dang, might as well just eat the bag it came in. Probably have as much taste. I need more of a thrill on my tastebuds to get my saliva flowing, yanno?

Obviously you have a broken family.

 

[Netzach]

I think one of the biggest misconceptions about me in this forum is that I am consciously choosing study over reality because I am otherwise too prudish, uptight, scared (pyl) to put myself out there. That is simply not the case and I am sorry if I have given people that impression. I spent 3 yrs reading about S/M D/s while I was in a committed vanilla relationship, and it took all of those 3 yrs for me to realize I no longer wanted to be in a vanilla relationship. So I ended it. There was no reason to talk to people or get out there or experiment during that time. One of the things I learned about myself during that 'study' phase is that I have many years of religious and social brainwashing to undue. It's the kind of brainwashing that keeps one locked in a very small cage or at the very least tethered to a very short leash (no BSDM pun intended). So I have some fears about entering into a D/s based relationship. Some of those fears are legitimate and some are irrational. Much of that I need to work out for myself. Would it be nice to be able to talk to and interact with people in the process? Sure it would. But I chose to participate in a forum like this instead because it is the most practical next step for me right now. In the past year, I've spent 10 months commuting from Tx to Ca every single week except for holidays. That doesn't leave alot of time for socializing or exploring relationships. What you and others see as excuses for not taking more action are to me very legitimate concerns that must be dealt with in a practical manner. Some people have offered suggestions without a real appreciation for the problem. I try to be polite without being overly dismissive, but that approach just seems to get me in even more trouble. Some of the emotional turmoil I'm dealing with is very private and I expect few in this forum could actually relate to it. I have never wanted to make those things topics for discussion in this thread. As for munches, my schedule makes them completely impractical for now, BUT I woudn't do them anyway. It is just not my thing. That is not to say that I would never do it, but right now, no. My position does not come from a place of insecurity or immaturity. Is that really such a difficult thing for people to accept?
You are right, life is a choice. And I am making those choices in a manner that is most practical for me. I do know what I need, and want, and what kind of changes in my life, both personal and professional, have to happen for me to get there. I don't particularly like labels myself. It is not my preferred form of communication. But when I find myself constantly being misquoted and misinterpreted, I will use very blunt and direct language to make my point. I don't ever use labels to judge or criticize. Labels are only as harmful as the intent behind them. I don't think what you or anyone does is a problem. I am only concerned with another's behavior if it impacts me directly. I have no idea why you think I have a problem with your behavior. I have never been anything but occasionally inquisitive and always respectful in any of my communications with you.
Everyone has a different level of comfort and tolerance for the various and many activities within the spectrum of BDSM. Each person has to decide for themselves what is 'edgy' based on their own personal comfort zone and set of experiences. Why does my own personal standard of 'edgy' bother so many, especially when I don't apply that standard to anyone but me?

I'm not bothered by what you find edge. I'm concerned about the fact that you can't see the fact that activities you don't find push your buttons that way might still contain real risk for the participants and need or need not provoke the level of questioning that "something that might cause harm like public humiliation" might. You are using subjective criteria to initiate a dialogue about "what should people do when this gets dangerous" and still refusing to acknowledge just how subjective these criteria are, or that maybe it's not the JOB of every top to have the base of every bottom that walks across their path covered for them. Making sure that there are no sharp psych edges that MIGHT hurt my bottom is a level of babysitting I will not be enslaved to, no matter how big a risk I run. I play with adults.

I take the attitude that all of this and any of this "could get dangerous." Assume the risk like an adult, and assume others are doing the same and don't play with people you can't trust to do that. It's really easy - in theory. Gleaning that information is more art than science and really no different from vetting anyone on anything else in life. I hold bottoms personally responsible for their shit. I do not second guess them deeply and often in the name of that.

You seem to want to jump to all kinds of conclusions about other people's backgrounds, but chafe if anyone inteprets your words to say anything about yours.

Private humiliation can cause harm. Candle wax can cause harm. The same line of questioning can be applied to people who like any sexual variant - but Deserving Bitch already asked the valid questions along these lines.