Going to extremes

[Kajira Callista]

Given I am still not firing on all cylinders, I might not be reading this right as I skim through, but my thinking is I would prefer someone who NEEDS to rather than someone who just WANTS to. Why? For one, I feel safer and more in tune with someone who does out of need, more so than someone who does out of want as IME the 'want' driven ones are the ones who will go into areas they do not know anything about and without researching first simply because they want to be seen to be edgy and keeping up with the Jones's. The one who needs on the other hand usually is very aware of their need and seeks to find the source of that need, and how to feed it safely and regularly to keep it under control. It doesn't mean they act without control, or if they are ill or their pyl is ill, they go ahead anyway...it means they cannot turn it on and off depending on whether they want to impress, have an audience, seem to be cool etc., but they can take a raincheck when circumstances are not ideal. Need to me demonstrates who a person is, want often demonstrates who they want to appear to be. Guess it is subjective to which angle you look at it from.

Catalina

I think it was more... someone who has a need but doesnt need to act on that need to control another...but then again im not so right these days either. lol

 

[Pure]

good points, cat and leftit B,

i think lots of sex activity is out of need. the point is not to be too short-sighted or antisocial (Dahmer style) about satisfying those needs. arguably, lots of social activity/intercourse in general is out of need, which is why 'solitary confinement' is nasty for man or even dog or parrot.

so far the discussion, for me, illustrates the fuzziness of this concept of a *bad* "going to extremes." kajira proposed want versus need, and apparently preferred the former, which--if i read her right--*might* lead to extremes, but OK ones. graceanne thought of bad extremes as those of 'adrenaline junkies' as opposed, i guess, to the voluntary, 'self controlled' types.

now 'self control' is on the agenda: a good extreme is pursued with self control--that's the theory. well, i don't mind that 'self control' concept, though it's probably flawed: for instance, a fellow like Bundy, charming psychopathic sex killer had lots of self control up to his last period. in the end, you could say he lost control and succumbed to his inner demons *in doing unnecessarily dangerous and foolish things*, like committing murder in Florida, which has a death penalty.

Unless of course, he wanted to die. If he wanted to die, to stop his inner demons, then he went about it in a rational way, even, maybe, 'self controlled' (as opposed to demon controlled, i guess.)

but yes, let's have 'self control', which maybe is part of 'maturity' or 'ego strength.' ability to wait for rewards, to persist, etc.

part of 'self control' may be NOT to yield to antisocial impulses, like to kill the guy in the car ahead of you, who's blocking traffic. for an adult of odd sexual inclinations, yes, i suppose 'self control' might be leaving the kids and obviously non consenting adults alone, for example, avoiding exhibiting your privates in the city park.

 

[catalina_francisco]

avoiding exhibiting your privates in the city park.

Damn, I didn't pass that one....LOL, though of late it has been the airport arrivals terminal...blame it on him.

Catalina

 

[Let_it_come]

good points, cat and leftit B,

i think lots of sex activity is out of need. the point is not to be too short-sighted or antisocial (Dahmer style) about satisfying those needs. arguably, lots of social activity/intercourse in general is out of need, which is why 'solitary confinement' is nasty for man or even dog or parrot.

so far the discussion, for me, illustrates the fuzziness of this concept of a *bad* "going to extremes." kajira proposed want versus need, and apparently preferred the former, which--if i read her right--*might* lead to extremes, but OK ones. graceanne thought of bad extremes as those of 'adrenaline junkies' as opposed, i guess, to the voluntary, 'self controlled' types.

now 'self control' is on the agenda: a good extreme is pursued with self control--that's the theory. well, i don't mind that 'self control' concept, though it's probably flawed: for instance, a fellow like Bundy, charming psychopathic sex killer had lots of self control up to his last period. in the end, you could say he lost control and succumbed to his inner demons *in doing unnecessarily dangerous and foolish things*, like committing murder in Florida, which has a death penalty.

Unless of course, he wanted to die. If he wanted to die, to stop his inner demons, then he went about it in a rational way, even, maybe, 'self controlled' (as opposed to demon controlled, i guess.)

but yes, let's have 'self control', which maybe is part of 'maturity' or 'ego strength.' ability to wait for rewards, to persist, etc.

part of 'self control' may be NOT to yield to antisocial impulses, like to kill the guy in the car ahead of you, who's blocking traffic. for an adult of odd sexual inclinations, yes, i suppose 'self control' might be leaving the kids and obviously non consenting adults alone, for example, avoiding exhibiting your privates in the city park.

WOW!
Fuck me.
Really... Anytime...
Jen.

 

[BeachGurl2]

This is just my opinion, mind you. And the way I view things in this lifestyle and in general.

I think you might be comparing apples to oranges here between the want/need aspects and the scening/non-scening aspects. For me, there is a difference between what I view as a true "scene" and a relationship. I could scene with anyone I may feel a bit of a connection with. And that scene could be extreme or intense or any number of things. But for me, it's not the ultimate in extreme because it's just physical. The ultimate for me involves emotion much more than just the physical. RJ, it sounds like that may be what you were alluding to in your original post.

I think there can be a very big difference in the sensations, intensity, whatever you want to call it, when there is a deep, emotional connection between partners. No matter what you might be doing - even if you aren't in the middle of any sexual situation - when you have that emotional connection, everything can be more intense or extreme. The level of trust and loyalty are also much deeper. And whether you're involved in a scene or just lying on the sofa together watching a sappy movie, it's the emotional connection that makes the difference.

RJ, just a question/statement that might lead you to more answers - is this something you would consider extreme/intense? In your building blocks thread, you share the following:

After it was in place she reached over and took my hand and was looking at it and then started holding my hand that was tied and asked if I would tie our hands together. So I did. Nothing fancy, just left my hand tied like it was and then wrapped our hands and wrists together coiling the rope over and over till I used it all up.

She gave me a bit of a purr and said this was the kind of knots she liked. I asked her what she meant and she said the kind that ties me to you. We watched most of the movie like that.

That sounds like a pretty intense, extreme moment to me.

 

[RJMasters]

But for me, it's not the ultimate in extreme because it's just physical. The ultimate for me involves emotion much more than just the physical. RJ, it sounds like that may be what you were alluding to in your original post.

I think there can be a very big difference in the sensations, intensity, whatever you want to call it, when there is a deep, emotional connection between partners. No matter what you might be doing - even if you aren't in the middle of any sexual situation - when you have that emotional connection, everything can be more intense or extreme. The level of trust and loyalty are also much deeper. And whether you're involved in a scene or just lying on the sofa together watching a sappy movie, it's the emotional connection that makes the difference.

Yes, you are back on track with the original post here. This other discussion of need and want stemmed from other questions and answers that followed. What you said above is what I was alluding to in my original post.

RJ, just a question/statement that might lead you to more answers - is this something you would consider extreme/intense? In your building blocks thread, you share the following:

That sounds like a pretty intense, extreme moment to me.

For that moment, there was some intenseness and extremeness associated with what happened. Mostly because it was the first time anything like that happened. As an act it wasn't all that extreme, but it was satisfying. Unfortunately nothing has happened along these lines since.

I think though over all you are on the right track when you said - "when you have that emotional connection, everything can be more intense or extreme. " I think what makes the difference is when the focus isn't on the particular act that may be currently going on as much as the focus is on the person you are with.

This sums it up nicely:

"The ultimate for me involves emotion much more than just the physical."

 

[RJMasters]

Given I am still not firing on all cylinders, I might not be reading this right as I skim through, but my thinking is I would prefer someone who NEEDS to rather than someone who just WANTS to. Why? For one, I feel safer and more in tune with someone who does out of need, more so than someone who does out of want as IME the 'want' driven ones are the ones who will go into areas they do not know anything about and without researching first simply because they want to be seen to be edgy and keeping up with the Jones's. The one who needs on the other hand usually is very aware of their need and seeks to find the source of that need, and how to feed it safely and regularly to keep it under control. It doesn't mean they act without control, or if they are ill or their pyl is ill, they go ahead anyway...it means they cannot turn it on and off depending on whether they want to impress, have an audience, seem to be cool etc., but they can take a raincheck when circumstances are not ideal. Need to me demonstrates who a person is, want often demonstrates who they want to appear to be. Guess it is subjective to which angle you look at it from.

Catalina

Weighting in on the wants -vs- need issue here....which is not the main topic but one that came up through discussion.

I think there is a combination of both want and need in all of us. I can see pros and cons of both as a primary motivating factor, as you said...."it is subjective to which angle you look at it from" I think compatibility has alot to do with finding another person with the right mix of "want and need" to match yours.

The topic is really more about extremes and the propensity to only view things in terms of sexual physical acts as extreme. In my experience over the years, be it online or in RL, I have seen other expressions of extreme which are not centered upon the physical but more centered upon the persona and the emotional connection shared between two people.

I have always held that exchange can happen over three representative areas:

The mind - Mental exchange
The heart - Emotional exchange
The body - Physical exchange

It is possible to compartmentalize to the point where the focus is centered solely upon one of these areas and the other two are neglected. Though they may be neglected as a focus, it does not mean they are immune to the effects of having a singular focus. The truth is that each effect each other. As I listen to what some are saying, I see that the mental and the emotional are every bit as important to them as the physical. I also note that when the mental and emotional aspects are a vital part of an exchange(or for even the possibility for excahnge to occur), there is a tendency to elevate the expereinces at the physical level as well. Some to the point where even a look or word would be in some circumstances considered extreme.

 

[A Desert Rose]

I don't understand what it is you're looking for, RJ... and you know what I do at times like this, dontcha?

I hijack.

But out of respect for you, I'll refrain... this time.

 

[Private_Label]

everyone likes adrenaline, gracie!



abstract person.

I like my Adrenaline wrapped in Endorphins please!

I have received Epinephrine for a systemic allergic once and I have a couple of EpiPens around the house just in case. Come to think of it - the current ones are getting to be a year or so old. Time for a new prescription. It felt wonderful at the time. Of course at the time I was itchy all over in a bad way, but still it felt good. But that doesn't make me an adrenaline-junkie


I can't use capsacin (the active ingredient in hot peppers) on my skin, but I love putting it on my Mexican food. As much as for how my body reacts and breaths easier, as for the taste of it. Rather I started eating the hot sauce for the pain relief effects and now I like the way it tases.

 

[FurryFury]

Yeah, I admit to being a bit of a thrill seeker which may be a bit off topic, I'm not sure. When I seek thrills it's for the sense of danger and freedom that I feel during those seconds or minutes of possible danger or death. There is NOTHING like it!!! I'm not for that small period of time someone's anything. I'm not their daughter, wife or mother but just ME and that is a rare elemental thing I need at times.

Fury

 

[catalina_francisco]

Weighting in on the wants -vs- need issue here....which is not the main topic but one that came up through discussion.

I think there is a combination of both want and need in all of us. I can see pros and cons of both as a primary motivating factor, as you said...."it is subjective to which angle you look at it from" I think compatibility has alot to do with finding another person with the right mix of "want and need" to match yours.

The topic is really more about extremes and the propensity to only view things in terms of sexual physical acts as extreme. In my experience over the years, be it online or in RL, I have seen other expressions of extreme which are not centered upon the physical but more centered upon the persona and the emotional connection shared between two people.

I have always held that exchange can happen over three representative areas:

The mind - Mental exchange
The heart - Emotional exchange
The body - Physical exchange

It is possible to compartmentalize to the point where the focus is centered solely upon one of these areas and the other two are neglected. Though they may be neglected as a focus, it does not mean they are immune to the effects of having a singular focus. The truth is that each effect each other. As I listen to what some are saying, I see that the mental and the emotional are every bit as important to them as the physical. I also note that when the mental and emotional aspects are a vital part of an exchange(or for even the possibility for excahnge to occur), there is a tendency to elevate the expereinces at the physical level as well. Some to the point where even a look or word would be in some circumstances considered extreme.

I am a bit with ADR on not quite knowing what it is you are looking for, but I'll try a little. I think some may concentrate more on the physical without emotional or psychological added, but I also think that occurs more between casual players or in a situation where one or both are out to prove something, outdo another etc. I personally can't see one woking without the other two, but then that is me. I'm not sure I could in my present relationship feel a word or look was extreme. Both are things which you can walk away from or dismiss if you really wanted to, and I think for us there really is no way he could look at or thing he could say which I would now consider extreme if not followed by an action.

I think for me it comes back to the old 'sticks and stones' saying, many people can talk big, act good, but few can carry through into actually performing what they hint at or threaten when it comes to extremes. Perhaps my inability to see a word or look as extreme (in a relationship as without a relationship it is difficult for it to matter given you do not have a relationship with the other) is that I am not fainthearted or given to melodramatics or filling in the gaps which might not be going to be filled in.

I also think it is about who you are, what works for you more so than simply looking at extreme play as someone who is just trying to recapture a thrill and having to go further each tme to do that. IME, my very first session to see if I really was on the right track in pursuing this type relationship resulted in me being black and blue head to toe for weeks, and yet I had begged for more. Most seem to start off with smaller steps and work their way up to heavier play...for me I am thinking it would not have worked because it was not where my needs were at. Where we are now going as a couple is not the result of needing to increase the thrills which are now dulled by previous behaviour(because theya re still just as thriling) so much as being what we planned and where we planned to go before we even ever met. For us it is all just part of the journey we intended to take.

Catalina

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

Grinz...that makes sense in a Rebecca sort of way.

Care to expound upon what you said?

Yes I will be happy to RJ. Just working on a diagram as an alternate way of expressing what I need to . May take a small while until I know I can post it and it make convey to others what I hope to contribute to the topic.

 

[Netzach]

I'd like to think that I'm still a Domme at my sickest and most miserable, but mostly I get more sick and more miserable when I can't DO the shit I want to do. I almost went crazy "vanilla" but able to think anything I wanted, to me laid up is more of the same.

Shallow? Physically bound?

You bet.

 

[Pure]

issues--body mind emotion

rj: I have always held that exchange can happen over three representative areas:

The mind - Mental exchange
The heart - Emotional exchange
The body - Physical exchange

It is possible to compartmentalize to the point where the focus is centered solely upon one of these areas and the other two are neglected. Though they may be neglected as a focus, it does not mean they are immune to the effects of having a singular focus. The truth is that each effect[affect] each other.

i'm not sure there are three areas, rj, even with the stipulation that they affect each other. i don't know what a {mostly, purely} 'physical exchange' would look like between two people. i don't know what it would look like to 'compartmentalize, say, the physical and 'neglect the other two'. does that mean whipping the other, but not writing books or even postings about it?

like Netzach says of herself, we're all 'physicaly bound,' i.e., embodied. two strangers doing WIITWD to each other's bodies are strangers because they don't know each other and are aware they don't (mental), and that's part of the dynamic of the interaction of their body-minds. IOW a stranger may be especially exciting.

 

[Let_it_come]

Just a POV following on from Pure - That is ABSOLUTELY why starangers are so exciting... The random, unknown, nature of their lust. The fact you can't predict them and that they shake up all your previously established patterns of sexual behaviour that you are used to with your usual partner.

Another 2c from me!
Jen.

 

[FurryFury]

Being able to fantasize when I'm not getting what I want/need is part of what has made me able to enjoy mostly 'nilla sex and before that, forced sex, for so long.

That is also one reason why the idea of sub space appeals to me. Shutting the brain off with all those nasty fantasies would be a totally different thing.

Now that I sometimes do get something closer to what I want and need I find the habit of creating a taboo and a highly D/s situation in my brain is still there.

Fury

 

[masterWNY]

what about total anonymity...glory holes?

Always a turn on to see a girl at one...

Just a POV following on from Pure - That is ABSOLUTELY why starangers are so exciting... The random, unknown, nature of their lust. The fact you can't predict them and that they shake up all your previously established patterns of sexual behaviour that you are used to with your usual partner.

Another 2c from me!
Jen.

 

[RJMasters]

I am a bit with ADR on not quite knowing what it is you are looking for, but I'll try a little. I think some may concentrate more on the physical without emotional or psychological added, but I also think that occurs more between casual players or in a situation where one or both are out to prove something, outdo another etc. I personally can't see one woking without the other two, but then that is me. I'm not sure I could in my present relationship feel a word or look was extreme. Both are things which you can walk away from or dismiss if you really wanted to, and I think for us there really is no way he could look at or thing he could say which I would now consider extreme if not followed by an action.

I think for me it comes back to the old 'sticks and stones' saying, many people can talk big, act good, but few can carry through into actually performing what they hint at or threaten when it comes to extremes. Perhaps my inability to see a word or look as extreme (in a relationship as without a relationship it is difficult for it to matter given you do not have a relationship with the other) is that I am not fainthearted or given to melodramatics or filling in the gaps which might not be going to be filled in.

I also think it is about who you are, what works for you more so than simply looking at extreme play as someone who is just trying to recapture a thrill and having to go further each tme to do that. IME, my very first session to see if I really was on the right track in pursuing this type relationship resulted in me being black and blue head to toe for weeks, and yet I had begged for more. Most seem to start off with smaller steps and work their way up to heavier play...for me I am thinking it would not have worked because it was not where my needs were at. Where we are now going as a couple is not the result of needing to increase the thrills which are now dulled by previous behaviour(because theya re still just as thriling) so much as being what we planned and where we planned to go before we even ever met. For us it is all just part of the journey we intended to take.

Catalina

Great post Cat. Replacing the word extreme for satisfying would put us on the same page at least from my perspective.

 

[RJMasters]

I'd like to think that I'm still a Domme at my sickest and most miserable, but mostly I get more sick and more miserable when I can't DO the shit I want to do. I almost went crazy "vanilla" but able to think anything I wanted, to me laid up is more of the same.

Shallow? Physically bound?

You bet.

Didn't mean to infer an absence of acts or being able to do anything, more along the lines of "being the candy". When that happens, extreme or satisfying isn't limited to just physical acts...and of course some of this is not just about one's self, but the reaction caused within the mind, heart and body of the SO. Meaning simply that they could spend an hour bathing your feet with their mouth and for them, because its "your" feet it is satisfying. Washing someone's feett with their mouth may or may not be considered extreme(and its for the most part is irrelavant) as an act in and of itself depending on how one looks at it, but for the person who is doing it, the act itself becomes extreme/satisfying because of the one attached to the feet. Make sense?

So its not so much about the absence of acts, though I take your point and would agree that not being able to do anything would suck hind tit.

I see alot this tendency of....
Person 1: I was fisted last night and it was great!
Person 2: Oh yes I was fisted too but in both my ass and pussy
Person 3: I was fisted in both holes while swallowing gallons of cum by suckking off 5 guys.

All might be 100% true and great...np...but I wonder if at times if it is nothing more than a pseudo measuring of dicks mentality. I also wonder if those who are new come and see this and draw conclusions that this is what its all about, meanwhile they miss any concept of what, "being the candy is all about."

I am not trying to push or force any dogma here, More along the lines of my experience has taught me that extreme or satisfying D/s BDSM has more to do inheirently with the people involved than the acts by themselves.

 

[RJMasters]

i'm not sure there are three areas, rj,

Certainly are entitled to your opinion. The break down is mere an easy way to explain or put into words that a human being thinks, feels and acts. Therefore exchange can happen when two or more people share thoughts, feelings or acts.

i don't know what a {mostly, purely} 'physical exchange' would look like between two people. i don't know what it would look like to 'compartmentalize, say, the physical and 'neglect the other two'. does that mean whipping the other, but not writing books or even postings about it?

How about a 20 dollar hooker for starters. Self absorbed sex would be along these lines as well. It certainly may be extremely satisfying to the one doing it, and even for the one being used in some cases As you noted below

two strangers doing WIITWD to each other's bodies are strangers because they don't know each other and are aware they don't (mental), and that's part of the dynamic of the interaction of their body-minds. IOW a stranger may be especially exciting.

There is no doubt that you would consider this exciting. I bet others do as well. For some this is not a reality, but this does exist for them on a fantasy level as exciting. Then there are others where this is not a reality nor even a fantasy. Their reality and or fantasies revolve around D/s BDSM, which is more relationship based. There is differentiation between the interaction of body-minds between two strangers and the interaction of body-minds between a Domme/Dom and a submissive in a relationship.

You can argue all you wish about which is better, but that is truly a matter of preference and so is a pointless pursuit. What is much more germane to the topic at hand is, putting forth the idea or concept of what that differentiation between the interaction of body-minds may consist of, why that differentiation is important for some, and openly discuss the exciting(satisfying, extreme...etc...) aspects of that.

The majority of submissives I know here at lit may admit to the fantasy of sceneing with a stranger Domme/Dom, but would never do so in reality as they would require some form of trust and respect to be established between them and whatever Domme/Dom they would scene with first.

 

[RJMasters]

Attitudes

Definately an essential stepping stone.

The war of the wills are fought in the heart and in the mind. Victory hinges upon wheather the body leads or follows in much the same one can win a battle and lose the war. One can be sustained from obedience to spoken commands, yet one can feast as a glutton upon the sincerity of effort alone. Why then should we settle for that which makes bland the pallete? I say let one's bite equally draw another's life-essence along with the blood. If the flesh sould shiver, let it be as a rippling in accordance with nature, starting from the inner most circle and moving outwards. Tis the greatest blessing and foulest of curses that something so noble be as one with something so common. It must be part of the reason, which finds the wounding of the flesh so pleasant to my being.

 

[Pure]

Originally Posted by Pure
//two strangers doing WIITWD to each other's bodies are strangers because they don't know each other and are aware they don't (mental), and that's part of the dynamic of the interaction of their body-minds. IOW a stranger may be especially exciting. //

RJThere is no doubt that you would consider this exciting. I bet others do as well.

P: so how about you, rj; done DS or SM with a stranger? or are you speculating?

RJFor some this is not a reality, but this does exist for them on a fantasy level as exciting. Then there are others where this is not a reality nor even a fantasy.

P:yes, lots of variety

RJ:Their reality and or fantasies revolve around D/s BDSM, which is more relationship based.

P: Is bdsm [or, d/s bdsm] more 'relationship based'? Is it for you? What are your data about bdsm [or d/s bdsm] within and outside relationships? (There is now a lively, if not vast market wherein males buy services of dommes; this probably includes some men with girl friends or wives; do those data affect your hypothesis? or do they, perhaps, suggest that many men prefer [relatively] non-relationship- based D/s?)

Have you personally tried bdsm [or d/s bdsm] both inside and outside relationships, so as to have a basis for your preference, or are you speculating as to what you think you'd like?
===

NOTE: regarding ADR's concerns. the above questions do not seek to elicit a detailed autobiography*. no one has to supply detailed autobiography in order to state an *opinion. we can't ask for that in an internet forum. but when many vast and far-ranging opinions are givin about various forms of bdsm and "relationships," one wants to know their basis.

if opinions are to be discussed, their reasons have to be looked at, and those often involve experiences either direct or indirect.

*i do note that rj has posted much autobiography in multitudes of postings, so that is part of my reason (justification) for making these inquiries.

 

[A Desert Rose]

I'm more than a little astounded at the boldness of the questions I just read.

 

[A Desert Rose]

You don't need to justify yourself to me... or other readers. I just wish now that I'd quoted you before you made you edits.

Shame on me... LOL

 

[A Desert Rose]

But while you at it, why don't you ask Netz, Catalina, Ebonyfire, Shadowsdream, AA and I can go on and on, to tell you the PERSONAL basis for their opinions.

It would make for really good reading, I'm quite sure. But then, I'm sure you don't have the cajones to do that. LOL