Going to extremes

[saw_man1]

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

Hey, you really are back!

 

[A Desert Rose]

Yes well, I think it was astounding to ask someone such outright personal questions regarding the opinions they post here.

I'd be offended it if were asked of me and I'm offended that it was asked of another. What makes RJ any different from any other poster here? Why should he be asked to justify his opinions based supposedly on his personal life and no one else is asked?

 

[A Desert Rose]

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.

for posterity. LOL and before it can be changed again.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

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.

Let's see ...

• Netz would top from the bottom out of boredom, or fulfill Pure's De Sade wet dream of being on both sides of the whip.
• Hard to tell with kittycat, although her latest forays into the doer side leave me room to wonder.
• Eb's told him in slightly more polite language to STFU more times than i can count, or search.
• Difficult to say with Sd although she regularly shares thoughts of how to/did rather than what if.
• i've maintained the right to answer what i choose, take it to PM, or ignore.

for posterity. LOL and before it can be changed again.

The key word, "again" because if you don't catch it within the first three minutes, the mercury slips through your fingers.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Let's see ...

• Netz would top from the bottom out of boredom, or fulfill Pure's De Sade wet dream of being on both sides of the whip.
• Hard to tell with kittycat, although her latest forays into the doer side leave me room to wonder.
• Eb's told him in slightly more polite language to STFU more times than i can count, or search.
• Difficult to say with Sd although she regularly shares thoughts of how to/did rather than what if.
• i've maintained the right to answer what i choose, take it to PM, or ignore.

The key word, "again" because if you don't catch it within the first three minutes, the mercury slips through your fingers.

LOL... how true on absolutely all counts.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Oh and regarding SD... I can certainly speak from experience there. I have a thread on that somewhere, with pictures... LMAO.

What a night to remember... sighhhhhhh

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Let's see ... Netz would top from the bottom out of boredom, or fulfill Pure's De Sade wet dream of being on both sides of the whip.

Didn't see this post before i made my assumption, but apparently got it right. The phrase "Qbow says, 'bend over,'" might just become a popular response in these forums.

All kidding aside, i nod my head in agreement with Jan more than 50% of the time. It's that remaining percentage of shaking my head chuckling, rolling the eyes, or simply bypassing that keeps things interesting.

 

[A Desert Rose]

... All kidding aside, i nod my head in agreement with Jan more than 50% of the time. It's that remaining percentage of shaking my head chuckling, rolling the eyes, or simply bypassing that keeps things interesting.

Good for you. I find that if I answer anything he asks, it becomes a metaphysical/rocket science/calculus discussion. I'm not into thinking this out that hard. Thanks anyway.

I love D/s. I'm an s. ;-) and I love BDSM.

'nuff said for me.

 

[Shadowsdream]

Perhaps it is me, but I have been thinking alot lately about "extremes". I may be just rambling here, but wonder if anyone else shares some of my thoughts along simillar lines.

It seems so often that in the pursuit of more, better, hot etc... there is this mentality for the need to be extreme. Push the limits, thrill seeking and riding on the edge.

I wonder at times if we ever stop and think about what it means to be consistent and content. I don't mean to imply dull or get stuck in a rut as much as I mean to be able to be reliable in a consistent manner.

Some time a hug, a kiss, a look, a word, or a touch can be extreme all by themselves. I guess what I am trying to say is that often extreme doesn't always have to be about how big the butt plug is or how deep the bruise from a cane might be. Sometimes it is the person who makes even the simpliest of things extreme.

In my way of thinking, this is part of the magic and a critical part of any D/s relationship that intends to move beyond living from a scene to scene mentality.

I watch people burn out and I often see this associated with chasing the extreme carrot all the time. Perhaps some of you have experienced this or were in a relationship where this happened.

Sprinters and long distance runners are both extreme in their own ways, however one type lends itself to endurance. As far as relationships go, neither are neccessarily wrong, but depending on what one wants, one is definately more right than the other.

I like extremes as much as the next person, however of late, I have reminded myself that being extreme is not always about what a person does. It has alot to do with that connect between you and the other person and the way they look at you. If we would spent more time and energy developing this special connection, perhaps even the simplier things would be extreme and satasfying. The result might allow for more contentment through out the entire relationship as opposed to getting it from scene to scene.

There is a subtly here in the shift of focus, but it can make a huge difference. Maybe I am swinging for the bleachers here...or trying to walk on water...but I guess I am still naive enough to believe that one might be able to share an extreme experience with nothing but a whisper spoken or getting an expression of delight and approval from something done while serving to please.

Your post made Me think RJ of one of My toys and how My touch can take him further than any toy or BDSM extreme play will ever do. My nails running over his head makes him whimper and shake...My hand around his throat buckles his knees whether I apply pressure or not. My breath on his neck...My fingers in his mouth for sucking drop him to sub space. The sound of My voice both panics and excites him...a soft kiss on his forhead makes him gasp...and on and on and on...extreme pleasure can be as knee buckling as extreme pain or any other extreme play in My BDSM world. I simply love his exhaustion at the end of such play and emotion. It fulfills Me.

 

[FurryFury]

Your post made Me think RJ of one of My toys and how My touch can take him further than any toy or BDSM extreme play will ever do. My nails running over his head makes him whimper and shake...My hand around his throat buckles his knees whether I apply pressure or not. My breath on his neck...My fingers in his mouth for sucking drop him to sub space. The sound of My voice both panics and excites him...a soft kiss on his forhead makes him gasp...and on and on and on...extreme pleasure can be as knee buckling as extreme pain or any other extreme play in My BDSM world. I simply love his exhaustion at the end of such play and emotion. It fulfills Me.

Wonderful post Shadnowsdream.

Thank you I enjoyed your thoughts put to words very much.



Today my favorite thing that has happened was when he put his hand around the back of my neck and applied pressure. It sent me into another mind set very nicely. *purrs*

Fury

 

[SpectreT]

I'll try to offer my POV on everything that's been addressed

...though I may miss a few points here an there.

Taking it to the extreme (And not in a Paul Heyman sort of way... well, maybe that way, too...) :

Just a quick "me, too" on another's point that the more mainstream interest in the softer, lighter areas of BDSM, the more some feel the need to go "over the top", out into "no man's land", to borrow a few WWI references. And it can get just about as bloody and messy. And some people are always looking to recapture a first, forge into new territory instead of fortifying the territory they've already claimed.

Wants and needs:

Knowing the difference between the two is one of the hardest things modern first world humans have to do. I'd like to think the only people practicing this are those who need it; for whom it is fulfilling, even if it's just a need for a more adult form of play.

Body/Mind/Spirit:

Use the mind on the emotions, and the body will follow, use the mind on the body, and the emotions will follow, use the emotions on the body, and the mind will follow, use the emotions on the mind, and the body will follow. Notice anything about that? The body's never the leader. (I'll leave aside illness, and poor general health) The three are also intrinsically and inseparably linked. That cute little triskelion to represent BDSM has so many metaphorical applications, which is why I love that symbol: BD/DS/SM, Dom/Sub/Switch, Body/Mind/Spirit. Everything seems to come in threes.

Adrenaline Junkies:

I'm one of those, but see Self-control, below for a further clarification.

Self Control:

It's possible, in a temporary sense (temporary can mean decades, here, so don't think short-term) to have too much self control; you just plain "don't go there", simply because it's outside your "comfort zone". This can be a good thing, in moderation, but when it's taken too far, you leave all kinds of emotional landmines buried. Wrap yourself too tightly, and you start breaking bones and crushing nerves, cutting off circulation to the extremeties. So, like all else it seems we humans do, it's best done in moderation.

I posted this a long time ago, on control, I've had to dispense it again recently.

Make a two-column list. One column is "Things I can control." The second column is "Things I cannot control."

My columns are simple; I've only got one line in each.

Things I can control: How I act and react to the world around me.
Things I cannot control: Everything else.

Metaphysical/Rocket Science/Calculus:

I think I fall into the outrageously analytical end of things, myself, as this post demonstrates.

 

[SpectreT]

Much later in the day, I found something that this thread has had on the top of my mind all day. Billy Joel is the effin man, If anyone wants to understand how I feel, about life in general, this song is it: (Apologies for this hijack)

I go to Extremes

Call me a joker, call me a fool
Right at this moment I'm totally cool
Clear as a crystal, sharp as a knife
I feel like I'm in the prime of my life
Sometimes it feels like I'm going too fast
I don't know how long this feeling will last
Maybe it's only tonight

Darling I don't know why I go to extremes
Too high or too low there ain't no in-betweens
And if I stand or I fall
It's all or nothing at all
Darling I don't know why I go to extremes

Sometimes I'm tired, sometimes I'm shot
Sometimes I don't know how much more I've got
Maybe I'm headed over the hill
Maybe I've set myself up for the kill
Tell me how much do you think you can take
Until the heart in you is starting to break?
Sometimes it feels like it will

Darling I don't know why I go to extremes
Too high or too low there ain't no in-betweens
You can be sure when I'm gone
I won't be out there too long
Darling I don't know why I go to extremes

Out of the darkness, into the light
Leaving the scene of the crime
Either I'm wrong or I'm perfectly right every time
Sometimes I lie awake, night after night
Coming apart at the seams
Eager to please, ready to fight
Why do I go to extremes?

And if I stand or I fall
It's all or nothing at all
Darling I don't know why I go to extremes

No I don't know why I go to extremes
Too high or too low
There ain't no in-betweens
You can be sure when I'm gone
I won't be out there too long
Darling I don't know why I go to extremes

I don't know why...I don't know why...
I don't know why...I don't know why...
Out in the dark...into the light...

 

[RJMasters]

Grinz @ ADR's and AA's exchange. You guys crack me up

 

[RJMasters]

Your post made Me think RJ of one of My toys and how My touch can take him further than any toy or BDSM extreme play will ever do. My nails running over his head makes him whimper and shake...My hand around his throat buckles his knees whether I apply pressure or not. My breath on his neck...My fingers in his mouth for sucking drop him to sub space. The sound of My voice both panics and excites him...a soft kiss on his forhead makes him gasp...and on and on and on...extreme pleasure can be as knee buckling as extreme pain or any other extreme play in My BDSM world. I simply love his exhaustion at the end of such play and emotion. It fulfills Me.

Thank you SD for sharing this.

There are so many aspects of D/s BDSM which can be satisfying. I do think there are some aspects which can only be experienced where that connection has been forged and established. I would think it rare (not unheard of), that one might experience the same level of intensity as some of the things which you describe above, as a complete stranger. Often these kind of intense/extreme responses are made possible or stem from a collection of past experieces that have been shared and allow not only one to exert such dominace with a whisper, but also to allow for the other to let go so completely from the same.

 

[RJMasters]

...though I may miss a few points here an there.

Taking it to the extreme (And not in a Paul Heyman sort of way... well, maybe that way, too...) :

Just a quick "me, too" on another's point that the more mainstream interest in the softer, lighter areas of BDSM, the more some feel the need to go "over the top", out into "no man's land", to borrow a few WWI references. And it can get just about as bloody and messy. And some people are always looking to recapture a first, forge into new territory instead of fortifying the territory they've already claimed.

Wants and needs:

Knowing the difference between the two is one of the hardest things modern first world humans have to do. I'd like to think the only people practicing this are those who need it; for whom it is fulfilling, even if it's just a need for a more adult form of play.

Body/Mind/Spirit:

Use the mind on the emotions, and the body will follow, use the mind on the body, and the emotions will follow, use the emotions on the body, and the mind will follow, use the emotions on the mind, and the body will follow. Notice anything about that? The body's never the leader. (I'll leave aside illness, and poor general health) The three are also intrinsically and inseparably linked. That cute little triskelion to represent BDSM has so many metaphorical applications, which is why I love that symbol: BD/DS/SM, Dom/Sub/Switch, Body/Mind/Spirit. Everything seems to come in threes.

Adrenaline Junkies:

I'm one of those, but see Self-control, below for a further clarification.

Self Control:

It's possible, in a temporary sense (temporary can mean decades, here, so don't think short-term) to have too much self control; you just plain "don't go there", simply because it's outside your "comfort zone". This can be a good thing, in moderation, but when it's taken too far, you leave all kinds of emotional landmines buried. Wrap yourself too tightly, and you start breaking bones and crushing nerves, cutting off circulation to the extremeties. So, like all else it seems we humans do, it's best done in moderation.

I posted this a long time ago, on control, I've had to dispense it again recently.

Make a two-column list. One column is "Things I can control." The second column is "Things I cannot control."

My columns are simple; I've only got one line in each.

Things I can control: How I act and react to the world around me.
Things I cannot control: Everything else.

Metaphysical/Rocket Science/Calculus:

I think I fall into the outrageously analytical end of things, myself, as this post demonstrates.

SpectreT,

Had to read through yoru reply a few times before my mind could leap gears fast enough to process it all. I am glad I took the time to sort it out as I appreciate some of the comments you made. Maybe a little tomato/tamato but certainly reading from the same sheet of music on what was contributed. Especially the comment in regards to many things come in threes.

Thank you for taking the time to contribute your thoughts.

 

[RJMasters]

I love D/s. I'm an s. ;-) and I love BDSM.
'nuff said for me.

Simplistic and profound. Hands you a resees

 

[RJMasters]

Originally Posted by Pure
*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.

I will allow each of my posts to stand or fall based upon their own merits as posted. Since you have pointed out that I have already posted much autobiography in multitudes of my postings, I will let that suffice in answer to the questions you posed.

 

[Pure]

response to rj,

I will allow each of my posts to stand or fall based upon their own merits as posted. Since you have pointed out that I have already posted much autobiography in multitudes of my postings, I will let that suffice in answer to the questions you posed.

thank you for your polite reply.

i think that's a key point, rj. there are hundreds of postings, indeed entire threads, which you've started, devoted essentially to your autobiography. since reading that material is not a main focus [of mine], i can say i've read a couple dozen only, and so have a limited base.

on that base, i'd say--as far as i know-- you have no direct evidence as to a generalization about D/s with strangers as compared to those with whom one is close, or as to the latter being preferable as to deep--or, in the words of this thread, 'extreme'--experiences. but i'm willing to be corrected, since there is much about you, indeed posted about you or by you, that i don't know.

sticking to the male side of things: i'd further say, based on common knowledge about male "subs", that much of their activity is with strangers or semi-strangers, i.e. pro dommes, with whom there is minimal deep, reciprocal, emotional involvement. arguably they prefer it that way.

so, for the moment, leaving aside the other genders and categories, there is good evidence that for this very common category, the D/s desires are fulfilled without deep involvements. you might argue that IF they could find femdoms to connect romantically with, they'd have *much more* fulfilling encounters, but that's, imo, purely speculative.
----

PS. just for clarity, rj, let me underscore that none of the above is meant to knock anyone's personal preference, including yours. you have, so to say, every right to say, "I prefer peaches to pears." what i'm addressing is a generalization only, an appearance of giving primary value to your personal preference (for a deep 'D/s' relationship). IOW, you're apparent claim, so to say "Peaches are preferable to [a much better fruit than] pears." Possibly i misread you, but you will agree that such generalities, where stated, or implied, do not conduce to tolerance in this forum.

 

[Pure]

to adr:

I love D/s.... in one inch tall letters.

i'm glad you're feeling better! it's nice to see that ole' cantankerous self in your postings!

 

[SpectreT]

I will allow each of my posts to stand or fall based upon their own merits as posted. Since you have pointed out that I have already posted much autobiography in multitudes of my postings, I will let that suffice in answer to the questions you posed.

thank you for your polite reply.

i think that's a key point, rj. there are hundreds of postings, indeed entire threads, which you've started, devoted essentially to your autobiography. since reading that material is not a main focus [of mine], i can say i've read a couple dozen only, and so have a limited base.

on that base, i'd say--as far as i know-- you have no direct evidence as to a generalization about D/s with strangers as compared to those with whom one is close, or as to the latter being preferable as to deep--or, in the words of this thread, 'extreme'--experiences. but i'm willing to be corrected, since there is much about you, indeed posted about you or by you, that i don't know.

sticking to the male side of things: i'd further say, based on common knowledge about male "subs", that much of their activity is with strangers or semi-strangers, i.e. pro dommes, with whom there is minimal deep, reciprocal, emotional involvement. arguably they prefer it that way.

so, for the moment, leaving aside the other genders and categories, there is good evidence that for this very common category, the D/s desires are fulfilled without deep involvements. you might argue that IF they could find femdoms to connect romantically with, they'd have *much more* fulfilling encounters, but that's, imo, purely speculative.
----

PS. just for clarity, rj, let me underscore that none of the above is meant to knock anyone's personal preference, including yours. you have, so to say, every right to say, "I prefer peaches to pears." what i'm addressing is a generalization only, an appearance of giving primary value to your personal preference (for a deep 'D/s' relationship). IOW, you're apparent claim, so to say "Peaches are preferable to [a much better fruit than] pears." Possibly i misread you, but you will agree that such generalities, where stated, or implied, do not conduce to tolerance in this forum.

Couple of minor points. I posted here, a long time ago, something relevant to what bearing, if any, RJ's BDSM resume has on his ability to analyze and form opinions regarding things he's read/seen/heard about:

Experience does not quite correlate to skill; there will be some talented beginners, and some thumb-fingered bubbleheads who've been playing for quite a while, who've never done their homework.

While it was intended to be funny, it was also intended to illustrate that sometimes experience and custom can hide facts and knowledge from a member of a society, and someone approacing with "fresh eyes" can see what jaded experience cannot.

The "Common Knowledge" argument is, to me, specious at best. To quote a popular Science Fiction author, "If 'everyone knows' such-and-such, it ain't true, by at least a thousand to one." If you'd like to cite sources, web pages, articles published, fine, but to attemt to mask opinion as fact, with a blanket comment based on "Common Knowledge", is not useful, helpful, or informative. It can just as easily be drawn from that common knowledge that those encounters with prodommes are about as fulfilling as masturbation; it takes the edge off, but it isn't what they really need. The motives, and reactions, are missing from the basic "Commmon Knowledge" point.

The rest is pedantic, an argument based on your perception of the semantics of RJ's questions and points he's brought up; intentionally or not, it's a straw man. It can safely be assumed by most reasonable people that anything posted here is personal opinion and/or observation rather than purely objective fact. Picking apart and seeking resume basis for opinions expressed are far less conducive to open discussion and exchange of ideas than any blanket generalizations, which you have done, as well, with the "common knowledge" used to attempt to debunk RJ's opinions.

 

[Pure]

hi spectre,

thank you for your thoughts. they are clearly expressed and logical.
in fact, i generally agree with the drift of your points, applied to many postings on many, not all, topics: the postings are simply opinions, and statements or restatements of one's experience.

a source of problems, however--i think you'll agree--is when one of these opinions is dressed or presented as more than that.

yet, looking at it differently, it's natural to speak in more general terms, and make generalizations.

for instance if i may quote you:
S: The "Common Knowledge" argument is, to me, specious at best. To quote a popular Science Fiction author, "If 'everyone knows' such-and-such, it ain't true, by at least a thousand to one."

P: although you say "to me" early on, the clear drift of your point is that common knowledge is often wrong. else why appeal to your anonymous authority? indeed 'common knowledge' is often wrong. for instance, many people think that exposure to cold, and 'getting cold' is linked to *getting a cold.* Yet apparently that's not the case, according to a least one study.

further you say,

S: Picking apart and seeking resume basis for opinions expressed are far less conducive to open discussion and exchange of ideas than any blanket generalizations,

P: again you talk about 'less conducive to open discussion,' that is an objective assertion. you do not qualify with 'at least in my experience, it seems that....'

so i propose to you that regardless of the apparent virtue of speaking in therapy group terms "this is how 'i' feel" it's often not conducive to discussion of a number of topics, e.g. those mentioned already.

i won't quote from it, but the current thread about a dom who is cheating on his wife, is eliciting a number of responses like "that's wrong," or "lying destroys relationships." i dont think rj, or I am any different from these people--we almost inevitably get into objective claims, not merely 'in my experience, a lie destroyed a relationship.'

now to the topic at hand. if i said that 'it's common knowledge that many men visit prostitutes, and that many of these are married' would you have a problem with that? i could look up Kinsey or some other study, of course, but i think it's pretty well known.

an objective indicator is the scores of 'escort' ads in our local yellow pages, and the hundreds of such google-able ads under 'escorts' and 'my city'. have you read about the little fornication huts the Germans set up for the World Cup crowds?

similarly there is at least one objective indicator of the thriving business of pro dommes, though their clients do not often post here. (i've seen a couple exceptions.) last i looked, there were dozens, at one internet site, for my city. and these are far more frequent than male prodom ads. my impression is that that's a hard line to be in. one rarely sees female (pro) sub ads, except where that's some kind of roleplay by a prostitute.

i may be wrong, but my inference is that of those on the (het) commercial market--i.e. those seeking services-- male subs predominate over the other three categories (male dom, female dom, female sub). and that that explains the relative predominance of 'pro dommes' among these four categories of sellers.

my conclusion (hypothesis) is that there is a large and steady demand for prodommes by male subs. further, i think that these relationships are not 'deep', since that's how the pros want it. yet many do continue (repeat business), bespeaking a minimum of satisfaction.

which brings us to your last point, though perhaps you're not serious:

S: It can just as easily be drawn from that common knowledge that those encounters with prodommes are about as fulfilling as masturbation; it takes the edge off, but it isn't what they really need.

P: first, your analogy with masturbation is singularly ill chosen. again 'common knowledge' is that it's the most frequent sexual activity, including among many married persons of both sexes. as woody allen (my authority) says, 'hey, at least it's sex with someone you love.'

on your basic point, let's consider prostitutes generally, i.e. female ones servicing male clients. do you say 'it takes the edge off, but it isn't what [the clients] really need.' it unclear to me how one would prove such a statement; what evidence is relevant? how do you know?

further it supposes you know 'what these males ''really need"'--perhaps steady girl friends or wives?? well, perhaps. yet at the same time some of these males don't want to put out effort to please a g.f. so, given their leaning, this is about their best avenue.

in addition we must remember that the men with wives and girl friends are using the 'hoes' as supplements, not replacements. perhaps it's second rate sex but it's fine to 'top up' with.

now, turning to male subs and pro dommes. i make exactly the same argument. 1)you don't know what 'they [subs] really need.'
2) even were that their 'real need', it may be non-fulfillable.

in short, as with prostitutes generally, the 'really need' claims are questionable.

additionally the claim ignores that many married men are supplementing, 'topping up,' so that the allegedly second rate experience is still, apparently, one with some satisfaction.

most often, the claims about 'real needs' are made by those with an agenda, e.g. ministers, the pope: "everyone, excepting priests and nuns, really needs a monogamous marital relationship, that is the place of sex, according to natural law." and this is a moral ideal, not an empirical claim.

so i arrive at the point i originally asserted, having looked at some evidence, some 'common knowledge', made some inferences (hence i am possibly wrong). rj himself prefers these 'deep relationships' for D/s, though as far as i know, hasn't found this holy grail. (i am subject to correction, since i haven't read all his autobiographical postings.)

maybe you, Spectre, have? it actually doesn't matter. (i'm NOT asking for public disclosure!) even assuming, FTSOA, that you have a present, fulfilling, deep D/s situation. For there is no reason to for us to think that, among the available alternatives to many men (of 'sub' persuasion at least) 'deep relationship' is the preferable or most fulfilling of the D/s relationships, or that non-deep relationships have no role to play in supplementing one's sexual fulfillment.

thanks for 'listening' if you've gotten this far.

regards,

j.

 

[SpectreT]

thank you for your thoughts. they are clearly expressed and logical.
in fact, i generally agree with the drift of your points, applied to many postings on many, not all, topics: the postings are simply opinions, and statements or restatements of one's experience.

a source of problems, however--i think you'll agree--is when one of these opinions is dressed or presented as more than that.

yet, looking at it differently, it's natural to speak in more general terms, and make generalizations.

for instance if i may quote you:
S: The "Common Knowledge" argument is, to me, specious at best. To quote a popular Science Fiction author, "If 'everyone knows' such-and-such, it ain't true, by at least a thousand to one."

P: although you say "to me" early on, the clear drift of your point is that common knowledge is often wrong. else why appeal to your anonymous authority? indeed 'common knowledge' is often wrong. for instance, many people think that exposure to cold, and 'getting cold' is linked to *getting a cold.* Yet apparently that's not the case, according to a least one study.

further you say,

S: Picking apart and seeking resume basis for opinions expressed are far less conducive to open discussion and exchange of ideas than any blanket generalizations,

P: again you talk about 'less conducive to open discussion,' that is an objective assertion. you do not qualify with 'at least in my experience, it seems that....'

so i propose to you that regardless of the apparent virtue of speaking in therapy group terms "this is how 'i' feel" it's often not conducive to discussion of a number of topics, e.g. those mentioned already.

i won't quote from it, but the current thread about a dom who is cheating on his wife, is eliciting a number of responses like "that's wrong," or "lying destroys relationships." i dont think rj, or I am any different from these people--we almost inevitably get into objective claims, not merely 'in my experience, a lie destroyed a relationship.'

now to the topic at hand. if i said that 'it's common knowledge that many men visit prostitutes, and that many of these are married' would you have a problem with that? i could look up Kinsey or some other study, of course, but i think it's pretty well known.

an objective indicator is the scores of 'escort' ads in our local yellow pages, and the hundreds of such google-able ads under 'escorts' and 'my city'. have you read about the little fornication huts the Germans set up for the World Cup crowds?

similarly there is at least one objective indicator of the thriving business of pro dommes, though their clients do not often post here. (i've seen a couple exceptions.) last i looked, there were dozens, at one internet site, for my city. and these are far more frequent than male prodom ads. my impression is that that's a hard line to be in. one rarely sees female (pro) sub ads, except where that's some kind of roleplay by a prostitute.

i may be wrong, but my inference is that of those on the (het) commercial market--i.e. those seeking services-- male subs predominate over the other three categories (male dom, female dom, female sub). and that that explains the relative predominance of 'pro dommes' among these four categories of sellers.

my conclusion (hypothesis) is that there is a large and steady demand for prodommes by male subs. further, i think that these relationships are not 'deep', since that's how the pros want it. yet many do continue (repeat business), bespeaking a minimum of satisfaction.

which brings us to your last point, though perhaps you're not serious:

S: It can just as easily be drawn from that common knowledge that those encounters with prodommes are about as fulfilling as masturbation; it takes the edge off, but it isn't what they really need.

P: first, your analogy with masturbation is singularly ill chosen. again 'common knowledge' is that it's the most frequent sexual activity, including among many married persons of both sexes. as woody allen (my authority) says, 'hey, at least it's sex with someone you love.'

on your basic point, let's consider prostitutes generally, i.e. female ones servicing male clients. do you say 'it takes the edge off, but it isn't what [the clients] really need.' it unclear to me how one would prove such a statement; what evidence is relevant? how do you know?

further it supposes you know 'what these males ''really need"'--perhaps steady girl friends or wives?? well, perhaps. yet at the same time some of these males don't want to put out effort to please a g.f. so, given their leaning, this is about their best avenue.

in addition we must remember that the men with wives and girl friends are using the 'hoes' as supplements, not replacements. perhaps it's second rate sex but it's fine to 'top up' with.

now, turning to male subs and pro dommes. i make exactly the same argument. 1)you don't know what 'they [subs] really need.'
2) even were that their 'real need', it may be non-fulfillable.

in short, as with prostitutes generally, the 'really need' claims are questionable.

additionally the claim ignores that many married men are supplementing, 'topping up,' so that the allegedly second rate experience is still, apparently, one with some satisfaction.

most often, the claims about 'real needs' are made by those with an agenda, e.g. ministers, the pope: "everyone, excepting priests and nuns, really needs a monogamous marital relationship, that is the place of sex, according to natural law." and this is a moral ideal, not an empirical claim.

so i arrive at the point i originally asserted, having looked at some evidence, some 'common knowledge', made some inferences (hence i am possibly wrong). rj himself prefers these 'deep relationships' for D/s, though as far as i know, hasn't found this holy grail. (i am subject to correction, since i haven't read all his autobiographical postings.)

maybe you, Spectre, have? it actually doesn't matter. (i'm NOT asking for public disclosure!) even assuming, FTSOA, that you have a present, fulfilling, deep D/s situation. For there is no reason to for us to think that, among the available alternatives to many men (of 'sub' persuasion at least) 'deep relationship' is the preferable or most fulfilling of the D/s relationships, or that non-deep relationships have no role to play in supplementing one's sexual fulfillment.

thanks for 'listening' if you've gotten this far.

regards,

j.

Too much chowder from one clam, Pure.

Regarding the anonymous author, I was amusing myself to see if the quote would be recognized. Like many such references, though, it's really only for my own amusement. The author, BTW, is Robert Heinlein. I do stand by my assertion that in my experience "Common Knowledge" is nearly always self-serving, an attempt to dress one's own conceptions with an air of authority, rather than appealing to provable fact or honestly stating that one is expressing one's opinion. Your remark about colds illustrates this beautifully.

I also stand by my statement that different conclusions can be drawn from the same statements, be they fact, opinion, theory, hypothesis, or even "Common Knowledge". Some conclusions are more logical than others, though, and some seem more reasonable. This does not necessarily make them empirically true, but subjectively fitting. I used a specific, concrete example (regarding prodommes), which you took issue with, so here, I've attempted to communicate the broader hypothesis which I used, the hypothesis being my actual point, rather than the example I used to make it.

On the experience equating to knowledge; I note that, in my experience and observations, wit and perspicacity exist beyond and separate from how much experience has with a particular subject. It seems unfair to me, and somewhat disingenuous, to disregard, or even devalue, someone's observations based solely on their experience level. Sure, it's sometimes valuable, and (to provide a concrete example of a case that disproves my own statement) I wouldn't want a complete knucklehead who's never seen a mixing board in his life to try to produce a television segment, but by their very definition, observations and opinions regarding human experience do not require the same in-depth, technical, hands-on experience that queueing the right video clip and making sure the sound matches does.

As to my own, personal state; it's just that. Personal. Thank you for not asking for a full disclosure. I am gifted with a mind, and the ability to use that mind to analyze and communicate. This does not mean I have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. No single witness does. I have my truth, which isn't always relevant to the issues, but in an effort at honest communication I posted the relevant thoughts I have, back up a bit. No one here is intentionally presenting their opinions as fact, and are offering their thoughts and observations as just that: thoughts and observations.

To attempt to hold thoughts, observations and personal opinions in an online public forum to such a stringent pedantic and symantic standard is not conducive to open, forthright exchange of ideas, as people will be constantly self-censoring, or outright avoiding posting, simply because they're tired of defending their opinions. They shouldn't be required to, anyway, IMO. We're not PhD candidates, these certainly aren't thoroughly researched, 300-500 page papers (Not including footnotes and citations) There is an applicable standard, implicit in every single post here. It can be expressed in many ways, but the common forum shorthand for it is: YMMV, Your Mileage May Vary. We can certainly start a new thread on this topic, or take it to PM's. I love debate, after all, especially with someone who has similar, yet different, opinions, but we've derailed this thread quite enough, I think.

 

[Netzach]

Your post made Me think RJ of one of My toys and how My touch can take him further than any toy or BDSM extreme play will ever do. My nails running over his head makes him whimper and shake...My hand around his throat buckles his knees whether I apply pressure or not. My breath on his neck...My fingers in his mouth for sucking drop him to sub space. The sound of My voice both panics and excites him...a soft kiss on his forhead makes him gasp...and on and on and on...extreme pleasure can be as knee buckling as extreme pain or any other extreme play in My BDSM world. I simply love his exhaustion at the end of such play and emotion. It fulfills Me.

I've got one of these too. He's freak-show tough in terms of physical pain and deals with it all day long, other people's as well as his own. It's really interesting.

 

[Pure]

hi spectre,
if the thread is derailed, it's partly at least because you did not address the substantive issues of my last post. whatever the debate palaver, i do try to address the points at issue, namely 'deep' relationships and DS/SM.
but many of your points are well taken.

 

[Netzach]

I will allow each of my posts to stand or fall based upon their own merits as posted. Since you have pointed out that I have already posted much autobiography in multitudes of my postings, I will let that suffice in answer to the questions you posed.

thank you for your polite reply.

i think that's a key point, rj. there are hundreds of postings, indeed entire threads, which you've started, devoted essentially to your autobiography. since reading that material is not a main focus [of mine], i can say i've read a couple dozen only, and so have a limited base.

on that base, i'd say--as far as i know-- you have no direct evidence as to a generalization about D/s with strangers as compared to those with whom one is close, or as to the latter being preferable as to deep--or, in the words of this thread, 'extreme'--experiences. but i'm willing to be corrected, since there is much about you, indeed posted about you or by you, that i don't know.

sticking to the male side of things: i'd further say, based on common knowledge about male "subs", that much of their activity is with strangers or semi-strangers, i.e. pro dommes, with whom there is minimal deep, reciprocal, emotional involvement. arguably they prefer it that way.

so, for the moment, leaving aside the other genders and categories, there is good evidence that for this very common category, the D/s desires are fulfilled without deep involvements. you might argue that IF they could find femdoms to connect romantically with, they'd have *much more* fulfilling encounters, but that's, imo, purely speculative.
----

PS. just for clarity, rj, let me underscore that none of the above is meant to knock anyone's personal preference, including yours. you have, so to say, every right to say, "I prefer peaches to pears." what i'm addressing is a generalization only, an appearance of giving primary value to your personal preference (for a deep 'D/s' relationship). IOW, you're apparent claim, so to say "Peaches are preferable to [a much better fruit than] pears." Possibly i misread you, but you will agree that such generalities, where stated, or implied, do not conduce to tolerance in this forum.

I think I might have a few things to say on the topic.

I'd say a full half of the people I work with would love to work with someone with whom there's investment and connection. EVERYONE I work with desires chemistry - without that there's nothing doing and I've never heard anyone disagree.

Some of the most intense SM scenes I've ever had have been with people I don't know. D/s with someone I don't know never works for me - either that person is in strong and invested service with someone else they DO know and they are being lent to me, which is ok, or they are having an intense relationship with their own drives and needs and I'm just an enabler, also OK, but not D/s.