Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

[Pure]

Good points, lara.

I don't necessarily believe that everyone wants the responsibility of self and as a result, they often become victims of their own making. With that possibility, it is tough to say they should have known better. In fact, they do know better and may be unwilling to retain a hard lesson previously learned. Not my cup of tea, but i do gather there are some who prefer it this way, even if it is to their detriment. i don't advocate this kind of mindset, but i do acknowledge its existence.

Yes that's an interesting concept, 'victims of their own making.'

As to Cecile being unable to defend, yes. Haven't we all encountered something than cannot be resisted? But doesn't the point remain that she wasn't left a wreck, but a budding Mme de Meurtreuil (plans to marry and screw around.).

-----

I want to add a postscript on the 'honesty' issue. SD is, of course, right in that a certain kind of trust disappears where there is any lying.

In the present case, I'd think both Cecile and Mme de Tourvel would not give further opportunities, though Cecile didn't require further ploys to get her into the sack!!

I believe this relates to a topic some have bruited about these parts. Mindfuck. The most 'truthful' and effective, I would submit, can't be based on lies, and direct deceptions, as in many examples, including in the movie, DL. (I'm tying you and blindfolding you, and I'm going to do X[and then faking X]). Rather, it must --imho--spring from cruelty and/or self-seeking, for example in self absorbed sex. That way there's no bar to its continuing.

It's not been mentioned, but Mme de Meurteuil and Valmont, are besides co conspirators, antagonists. There is a *major mindfuck of Valmont when M says, "It's not been a triumph over Tourvel, but over you; you loved her, and dropped her. And now have nothing to show for it" (I.e., she won't fuck him, as promised.)

Now of course, deaths are imminent, and in that sense the action cant continue, but I think the point remains that cruelty in the service of self gratification allows for continuance (whereas out and out deceptions do not).

 

[Netzach]

antagonistic POV-- this is where BDSM as a subculture begins and where sadistic behavioral tics end.


in my experience a mindfuck is about the suspension of disbelief, the introduction of doubt in a situation where you know doubt isn't necessary.

The tension between appearence and prior knowledge "I'm safe"

is where faith comes into play, and where things get interesting.

A mindfuck that leaves someone disillusioned and cut off from me has always seemed like a pyrrhic victory at best.

 

[Pure]

Netzach said,

antagonistic POV-- this is where BDSM as a subculture begins and where sadistic behavioral tics end.


in my experience a mindfuck is about the suspension of disbelief, the introduction of doubt in a situation where you know doubt isn't necessary.

The tension between appearence and prior knowledge "I'm safe"

is where faith comes into play, and where things get interesting.

A mindfuck that leaves someone disillusioned and cut off from me has always seemed like a pyrrhic victory at best.

From my limited pov, I'm not talking BDSM subculture, though I am talking antagonistic. I don't think mainstream "BDSM" is mainly focused on antagonism, it's "The dom/me's interests coincide with the sub's, since both want to 'get off' and get each other off." "I will whip you in the agreed upon way, with the agreed upon whip, and get off on the whipping, as well as your reaction to it. You will get off, as predictable by you, in the expected manner."

What I'm playing with is that this threads about actual (not set up, enacted) exploitation. It leads, I'm thinking, to actual mindfuck

Iow, in terms of the movies, the two maids bedded had actual distress (though transient and minor, for Cecile); there's no 'as if', no 'suspension of disbelief' and no underlying knowledge of "I'm safe" (except from murder).

In the jargon, the 'top' who's practicing 'self absorbed' sex, 'taking advantage' etc. is creating actual distress in the bottom.

---
As to 'disillusioned' or 'cut off' feeling in the bottom. I grant you that, in the bottom who wants an ongoing, equal relationship.

One's actual feelings about being sexually used, *might be disillusioned, but equally might be thrilled or turned on, or feeling 'appropriately treated' (i.e, like kleenex that's used.).
You can't assume anything here.

 

[Pure]

A friend of mine wrote privately, some thoughts on this thread.
Let's call him 'Anti Valmont.'

I'm not quoting. I've put the thoughts in my own words. I wonder how people would answer them.

I'll hold off answering him, except to say that this thread, like my others, isn't to be taken as advice or direction.

======
Anti-Valmont

First points.

This isn't an objection to the person who just avidly seeks a lot of sex, and *doesn't worry* about the other. But it's about the deceptive and very unscrupulous libertine: a Valmont character who lies, who does get a charge out of the triumph, and essentially out of the discomfort of the other. In fact he calls it 'betrayal' (Meurteuil calls it cruelty).

It obviously goes beyond the more usual self-seeking, 'devil may care' screwing described by some of the posters.

The objection:

It's hard to imagine someone (one kind of particularly unscrupulous libertine) wanting to bring such extreme psychological suffering to another just because it is a thrill.
Meaning, hard to 'imagine' without feeling morally repulsed.

One example is Valmont's treatment of Mme de Tourvel. But everyone knows examples of those who've been subjected to such treatment, and how damaged some of them are.

There have been times when this thread appears to be discussing--or maybe recommending-- inflicting what can only be described as 'emotional abuse'. Given that some adults participating here, as children, have faced emotional abuse, it's hard to believe that sort of thing would be seriously suggested.

Consider what the effects of abuse are like (even leaving aside children). Even worse is the element of exhilaration, quite sexual in nature, which is sometimes described as occurring in--if not derived from-- this maltreatment of others.

[end Anti Valmont]

=======
=======



My comment (pure). I can see where some of this is coming from. I've most recently suggested a definite lack of sympathy for the Cecile type-- seduced one. I've suggested that some who run into 'unwelcome' sex bear some responsibility for their suffering, if that's what happens.

 

[Netzach]

What's with "BDSM" in quotes?

From the placement, it appears to me that you think contemporary leather/SM is trying to be something it's not. I've always maintained it's pretending to be itself.

When I say "BDSM" I'm talking about a sexuality movement beginning in the industrialzed West but spreading, just like Modernism, over the last 60 years or so. One generalization is that personal choice, responsibility, and entering a contract of one's free will are the general entree point into slavery, in this respect it resembles the army or indenture more than chattel slavery, although many subsequent arrangements are more like chattel slavery than indenture or the army.

Homosexual activity's been with us since the dawn of time, but that doesn't make our forbears "gay." Michelangelo has less in common with Harry Hay than my Grandmother does. The glory days of DeSade, Elizabeth Bathory, and Meurteuil are an interesting mental meander, but to put forward the suggestion that they present something more "authentic" an "actual mind-fuck" as opposed to something pale and imitative...because it's self-aware and self contained....I don't get it.

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

(Wouldn't mind your Opinion, pet, on how far is too far, based on your experience, or even based on nothing , which is actually what I'd been trying to get at in the first place.)

In answer to PS's question, here is a list of things I would not do (in the past or future)

• lie to get in someones pants. (By this I mean, tell them a bald faced untruth ie I want to be involved in a relationship with you)
• involve myself in a relationship for the sole purpose of doing damage to the person at a later date.
• Involve myself with someone for the sole purpose of what they can give me (besides a piece of ass ie money, power, fame, etc.)
• set someone up for a fall at a later date (ie go along for an unspecified amount of time before dropping the boom on them)

To me these things require an act of concious thought, unlike just wanting to get some and move on. I can not comfortably DO these things. It just strikes me as being more unfair and callous than I can be in reality.

I hope that made sense...
pet

 

[Pure]

Hi N,

you said,

When I say "BDSM" I'm talking about a sexuality movement beginning in the industrialzed West but spreading, just like Modernism, over the last 60 years or so. One generalization is that personal choice, responsibility, and entering a contract of one's free will are the general entree point into slavery, in this respect it resembles the army or indenture more than chattel slavery, although many subsequent arrangements are more like chattel slavery than indenture or the army.

I don't agree with "One generalization" at all, or very little. The BDSM contract is more akin to an agreement to attend the Sr. Prom, or at a standard 'marriage contract' (maybe even a Catholic one). *It has exit provisions,* and *individual rights' recognition.* It does not* except trivially, in form resemble, the army arrangement. Very rarely does it resemble chattel slavery, despite the term 'slave' being very widespread. IMHO.

Homosexual activity's been with us since the dawn of time, but that doesn't make our forbears "gay." Michelangelo has less in common with Harry Hay than my Grandmother does. The glory days of DeSade, Elizabeth Bathory, and Meurteuil are an interesting mental meander, but to put forward the suggestion that they present something more "authentic" an "actual mind-fuck" as opposed to something pale and imitative...because it's self-aware and self contained....I don't get it.

I didn't use the term 'authentic'. Or 'pale', or 'imitative.' I distinguish the 'mind fuck' deriving from an enactment, esp. pre-set or pre arranged, from an 'actual' mind fuck, as when you get home and your partner's cleared out the furtniture and themselves.

Most of the terms you use, distinguish it quite clearly, e.g., 'suspension of disbelief'. I don't make judgments about 'real' or 'genuine' or 'authentic', since all drama, esp. that in which one is involved, generates *real* emotions.

It makes no sense to say the sadness I feel at Ophelia's death, is not 'real' or 'authentic' sadness. That said, there is an 'as if' quality you allude to, which makes it also distinguishable from the, 'actual' sadness I felt when the dog died, irl.

I don't want to lose the main point here, however, that maybe the libertine practices generate what we might call 'actual mindfuck.' That follows from there being an 'actual' taking of advantage, as compared with a setup enactment where I ,say, rape you to your specifications. Incidentally, another distinguishing quality for the 'set up' (not actual) mindfuck discussed in some other threads : because it involves straight deception, it can't be repeated, whereas an actual minduck can.

Best,
J.

PS. Another point I want to keep visible, is that the Sadeian question is very much NOT a meander, nor an intellectual exercise.
Rather than Bathory, let's take John Kennedy, or Warren Beatty or Errol Flynn.

The 'sadistic' tendencies are found throughout history. Indeed, it arguable that Sade lies behind the Story of O. It's inspired thousands of BDSM community members to attempt enactments it, use names from it, etc. As the saying goes, 'life imitating art.'

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

BUT does the libertine (assumed to be scrupulous[non-lying] and legal), the self absorbed seeker, have a duty to be sincere, for instance, to fully disclose intentions? Must all 'topping' be carried out with sincerity?

<SNIPPED for brevity's sake>

A couple posters in this thread have commented on similar situations. The partner is making castles in the air and future plans. The libertine is honest to a point, e.g., in suggesting absense of long term commitment ideas. But the libertine certainly does NOT say, "I will fuck you and move on; than is my plan." S/he choses not to say this, for the time of the encounter. Is that a problem? Is that morally scummy?

Hmmm this post made me think.

When I was actively involved in my self serving gratification there were certain times and certain people where I did warn in advance (IE When this is done, so are you.) Nine times out of ten, THEY chose NOT to believe me.

Truthfulness in the instance of self-absorbed sex must happen at some point (whether before or after) to get that thrill of conquest. Otherwise, what would be the point of it all?

Yes, I do believe that not telling the chosen *prey* the full truth beforehand is a morally scummy thing to do...yet I still did it. The scumminess of that particular tack didn't stop me from reaching what I wanted as my foregone conclusion (IE the other person feeling just as scummy as I did before I decided on that particular course.)

One has to wonder, though, how many would have went ahead with it any way, even if I had fully disclosed my intentions before hand.

(my brain is wandering in circles...will have to come back to this later)

pet

 

[Pure]

pet said,

how many would have went ahead with it [sexual encounter]any way, even if I had fully disclosed my intentions [not to stick around] before hand.

Lots, I think, esp. since you're talking men. It's a rare man who believes he'll be chewed up and spat out.

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

pet said,

how many would have went ahead with it [sexual encounter]any way, even if I had fully disclosed my intentions [not to stick around] before hand.

Lots, I think, esp. since you're talking men. It's a rare man who believes he'll be chewed up and spat out.

There is that...I guess. One would think that with the whole aspect of women attempting to take more control of their bodies in the preceding decades that guys would at least think that a woman can and will say exactly what she means (concerning sex).

 

[Pure]

pet said,

Truthfulness in the instance of self-absorbed sex must happen at some point (whether before or after) to get that thrill of conquest. Otherwise, what would be the point of it all?

Excellent. Well said. "at some point."

Yes, I do believe that not telling the chosen *prey* the full truth beforehand is a morally scummy thing to do...yet I still did it. The scumminess of that particular tack didn't stop me from reaching what I wanted as my foregone conclusion (IE the other person feeling just as scummy as I did before I decided on that particular course.)

Come come. We put 'prey' in quotes, usually, to indicate sexual object. Who's NOT been kidnapped. (You didn't kidnap those boys, did you; tell us true, pet?)

This is NOT like literally preying on someone by taking their cash or killing them.

IOW, while literally preying may be scummy (morally wrong), I think you exaggerate-- or put us on, pull our collective leg-- in speaking of your own self recrimination (as morally scummy)
in ALL cases.

In ALL cases? Did you call the boy's mum and apologize?
(These 'boys' of course, we assume to be over 16, or legal age.)

How were you able to recover from these abysses of self torture?



PS.
you did say (or was it the devil?)
It wasn't nice, it wasn't fair..but it was FUN.

 

[SwtSouthrnSub]

.

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

pet said,

Truthfulness in the instance of self-absorbed sex must happen at some point (whether before or after) to get that thrill of conquest. Otherwise, what would be the point of it all?

Excellent. Well said. "at some point."

Yes, I do believe that not telling the chosen *prey* the full truth beforehand is a morally scummy thing to do...yet I still did it. The scumminess of that particular tack didn't stop me from reaching what I wanted as my foregone conclusion (IE the other person feeling just as scummy as I did before I decided on that particular course.)

Come come. We put 'prey' in quotes, usually, to indicate sexual object. Who's NOT been kidnapped. (You didn't kidnap those boys, did you; tell us true, pet?)

This is NOT like literally preying on someone by taking their cash or killing them.

IOW, while literally preying may be scummy (morally wrong), I think you exaggerate-- or put us on, pull our collective leg-- in speaking of your own self recrimination (as morally scummy)
in ALL cases.

In ALL cases? Did you call the boy's mum and apologize?
(These 'boys' of course, we assume to be over 16, or legal age.)

How were you able to recover from these abysses of self torture?



PS.
you did say (or was it the devil?)
It wasn't nice, it wasn't fair..but it was FUN.

LOL...

My point, dear Pure was that in some cases even though I did not believe the person I chose to capture *Deserved* what I had planned for them (thus the feelings of pity or scumminess) I still went a head and did it.

There were quite a few more that I did feel deserved it in some way shape or form. Those I felt absolutely nothing for...but the exceptions usually prove the rule. (or at least they do in my case). I got more of a charge from the ones who did nothing to draw my attention than I did from those who worked on getting to me.

Thus the feeling of scumminess when I carried out my forseeable conclusion. The fact that I felt badly (usually after, a few times beforehand) did not stop me from doing my deeds, it just colored the way I reacted at the time to the person.

(NO i didn't kidnap the poor defenseless playthings.... )

However, I must admit, that the birth of my daughters as well as that feeling of *meaness ie scumminess is what finally convinced me to stop that particular life choice. One can only maintain for so long without becoming completely cruel and that was something I did not want to happen.

(Hoped that was understandable...)

 

[Pure]

Hi vwlss sb,

you said (i've deleted my own previous words; it's usually clear what you're responding to; your words in italics, my present reply, in ordinary type):

SwtsthnSub:Doesn't this describe the majority of D/s Relationships? This is a BDSM board. Are you confused about something here?

I don't think so. Only one domme has entered the thread and 'confessed' to such self absorption. I doubt the male doms of the forum would talk this way (unless very drunk).

Taking your prey is often consentual in BDSM, even expected. <grins> Illegal assault more often applies to rapists, or non-consentual sex. But you did not outline this in your thoughts. People that have given their prior consent to that possibility are not often raped, but I will say that it can happen. There are reports of wannabe or fake dominants that take more than they are offered. That would be rape. Consent is the difference. Yes, males can be raped too, of course. It happens. No gender is immune from rape, but you know that.

I'm aware of these points. Perhaps it's not be clearly stated that the thread is about a kind of 'gray area' morally. The concept involves, in the old phrases, 'taking advantage' or 'having your way' or 'taking.' This is not dom talk.

Aren't all dominant's self-absorbed? LOL Again, you are describing what many Dominants do, BUT... the seasoned, caring and knowledgable ones do not abuse this position.

I think you answer your own question: 'seasoned, caring, and knowledgeable doms do NOT act in all that self-absorbed a way; most are extremely intent on convincing others of their 'seasoned, caring, and knowledgeable' ways that never take advantage of, or abuse the other.

Ever heard of pushing limits? Some of us do not want to know what comes next. It's an added kick for submissives too, as long as it is within limits of safe, sane and consentual.

I'm aware of these points. This thread is not about mainstream, SSC bdsm activities, including 'pushing limits.'

Rape scenes are common in dominion of BDSM.

Enactments of rape, yes. Consent for the scene, being pre-arranged. Not the topic.

Would a Libertine, possibly unfamiliar with the D/s lifestyle, have a clue if their partner was faking resistance for their own sexual motive? You are assuming that the 'Libertine' is much smarter than their partner. As in D/s this isn't always the case. There are some bottoms and submissives that are well versed mentally and physically in fooling the dominant to believe that they are having their way. I've known some that are quite adept at faking to please their dominant. They have faked pleasure from physical BDSM scenes as well as orgasms. Horrors!

That's an interesting point: the libertine is not supernaturally gifted. Yes, s/he could be fooled. "Faking to please the dominant" would not generally apply, here. A libertine up for a challenge, tries to ensure the resistance is real.

However, in the movie, DL, one libertine Mme de Meuteuil, appears to outwit the other, Valmont. She induces him to really fuck himself up. And to seek a 'prize' she's not going to give (herself).

"involved in the lifestyle"? part-time m'dear. I appreciate your explanations and good will. You do, in GWB's term, perhaps
'misunderestimate' me. If you have a look at the SMACK thread, where some similar concepts are applied to kink, maybe it will be clearer, and I'd like to hear any further questions.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=222209

Also, have a peek at the older 'topopolis' thread, which I just bumped into visibility.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121312&highlight=topopolis

 

[Netzach]

I'm going to hammer my little nail again then.

What you say is the "mainstream SSC BDSM" I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that is BDSM or SMBD or leather or whatever it is I personally do.

I'm not into twisting every which way to make sure I'm identified as "caring", true, and I do gain a genuinely visceral thrill from real physical discomfort, but I kind of clock in where Pet does on the "shitty things I've done but not regretted too much at the time, kinda grew up enough to not look to do 'em now as much" meter.

The part where I'm taking it a bt further is that I don't see a relationship between those grey areas, little white and little dirty ones, and sexual manipulations, and what I consider BDSM/SMBD Leather. Which I define largely on this lynchpin that someone understands and more or less accepts what's about to happen to them in a cognizant and NOT tacit fuzzy way. Yeah, I stand with Paglia and you on the subject of Naomi Wolf-like oh me oh my 20 years after Bloom gropes your thigh. Doesn't mean I see Bloom as a Dom in waiting or Wolf as a potential subbette.

I got into this precisely BECAUSE the demented mating rituals of the mainstream weren't doing it for me, and because as a woman in them I never felt I knew where I stood. Now I know exactly where I stand, and if I can't get that information out of a person, well, so long.

 

[Pure]

Netzach said,

The part where I'm taking it a bt further is that I don't see a relationship between those grey areas, little white and little dirty ones, and sexual manipulations, and what I consider BDSM/SMBD Leather.

I think this is perhaps because you focus on conventional DS, and neglect Sadism, a point made by several commentators in/on the bdsm community.

Which I define largely on this lynchpin that someone understands and more or less accepts what's about to happen to them in a cognizant and NOT tacit fuzzy way.

Would that life were like that, if 'cognizing' were at the fore and in control.

Yeah, I stand with Paglia and you on the subject of Naomi Wolf-like oh me oh my 20 years after Bloom gropes your thigh. Doesn't mean I see Bloom as a Dom in waiting or Wolf as a potential subbette.

Right on.

I got into this precisely BECAUSE the demented mating rituals of the mainstream weren't doing it for me, and because as a woman in them I never felt I knew where I stood. Now I know exactly where I stand, and if I can't get that information out of a person, well, so long.

It would be nice if bdsm persons could escape agenda'd sexual encounters or relationships. But, imo, it's not possible. I know perhaps a few things, sexual tastes, are out in the open, but desires to aggress, to demean, to be loved, to control, etc. are all there, and perhaps more dangerous because unacknowledged.
(Thanks to roscoe for pounding on this nail.)

If I may use a possibly related analogy: Lesbian persons once claimed that since spousal abuse was from patriarchy, even raising the question was silly. Well, we know that in fact, there is domestic abuse.

By analogy, BDSM person don't escape issues of power, ego, demeanment, revenge, victimization-- problems to which other human relationships are subject.

What this thread was designed to do was to bring a non-rare 'vanilla' practice into the open, because of its linkages with sadism. The posters here can and did fuck and forsake, pursue sex in a self absorbed way. That's akin to actual Sadism, for which there's a long tradition, even if the late 20th century 'caring dom/mes' reject it.

J.

 

[SwtSouthrnSub]

.

 

[Pure]

"SwtSouthrnSub" is short on vowels.
Hence vowelless.

Removing the vowels and doubles (and caps, as traditional): "vwls sb."

SSS (vwls sb): "I have no desire...."

Drop in, if you locate the 'sense of humor' key. Just to the right of the "Right Shift" key.

J.

 

[Netzach]

It would be nice if bdsm persons could escape agenda'd sexual encounters or relationships. But, imo, it's not possible. I know perhaps a few things, sexual tastes, are out in the open, but desires to aggress, to demean, to be loved, to control, etc. are all there, and perhaps more dangerous because unacknowledged.
(Thanks to roscoe for pounding on this nail.)

If I may use a possibly related analogy: Lesbian persons once claimed that since spousal abuse was from patriarchy, even raising the question was silly. Well, we know that in fact, there is domestic abuse.

By analogy, BDSM person don't escape issues of power, ego, demeanment, revenge, victimization-- problems to which other human relationships are subject.

What this thread was designed to do was to bring a non-rare 'vanilla' practice into the open, because of its linkages with sadism. The posters here can and did fuck and forsake, pursue sex in a self absorbed way. That's akin to actual Sadism, for which there's a long tradition, even if the late 20th century 'caring dom/mes' reject it.

J. [/QUOTE]

I'm not saying it *does always* work like this, I'm saying it *can* work like this, people with eyes open, as adults, taking responsibility for their sexuality and for the basic notion of consent.

That, to me, is kind of the ideal. And it's easier for me to find in an SM context than in a vanilla one, just like queer people make more sense to me than straight ones.

~N.

edited to add:

if my thing is so incompatible with Sadism, then what are we to make of the fact that I get wet when I poke people with sharp things and they like it?

Does that just make me someone who cuddles *really* hard?

 

[Pure]

N said,

if my thing is so incompatible with Sadism, then what are we to make of the fact that I get wet when I poke people with sharp things and they like it?

Does that just make me someone who cuddles *really* hard?

Your 'thing'--leanings and practices-- is certainly imbued with sadism, and your self-admitted sadistic streak is a joy to behold.

Hence you're always a welcome poster.

But there is a reason you are the only dom/me around this, or the SMACK thread: direct self-absorbed 'taking' is NOT admitted, much less proclaimed; rather it's ethics and caring. Esp. in the dom. And there is a shortage of conventional 'subs' here, also.

This is quite nicely illustrated in the statement of SwtSouthnS:
Aren't all dominant's self-absorbed? LOL Again, you are describing what many Dominants do, BUT... the seasoned, caring and knowledgable ones do not abuse this position.

The well-set sub says, 'he's sadistic, but, because caring etc., I need never fear, abusive,"; the dom/me says "I'm sadistic, but caring etc., and so never abusive."

If we look at the key statement of yours, it has similarities, and so illustrates my point; it's not about your practice, but about your rationale being not entirely worked out.

The part where I'm taking it a bt further is that I don't see a relationship between those grey areas, little white and little dirty ones, and sexual manipulations, and what I consider BDSM/SMBD Leather. Which I define largely on this lynchpin that someone understands and more or less accepts what's about to happen to them in a cognizant and NOT tacit fuzzy way.

As you said above, you're aroused by pain; here you don't seem to see inflicting it as connected at all to any 'gray area' (such as, A taking advantage of B). You're trying to insure "NOT tacit" and "[NOT] fuzzy." I.e, the bottom/ sub, has authorized the infliction, and there's explicit agreement in the details.

This is the etiolated sadism of the surgeon: "I'm going to make a 5 cm cut, 2 mm deep, right here. But before we begin, please sign the informed consent documents."

Part of what makes pain, pain, is fear and uncertainty. In disavowing any acts (and maybe any inclinations) to create that**, and claiming a neat fit with the SSC framework, you try, imo, to fit the square peg of your sadism into the round hole of the official 'caring' ideology.

That's my view of the situation.

To come back to the thread topic: the one who pursues 'self absorbed sex', that which, while legal, takes advantage of the other for the thrill of power, and coming to it, is the vanilla counterpart of the actual sadist (a pretty rare creature in the 'bdsm community' as officially [self] defined.) Just as the libertine is uninterested in hearing "Take me, I'm horny, I'm yours, I'm coming for you,", the actual sadist isn't trying to elicit, "Sweetie, whip me the way you know I like it, so your precious pet can, in entire trust, come for you."

J.

-----

**In the official parlance, "Trust that I will care for you and that I'll never take advantage of you."

---
PS. A friend asked me what the f*** the thread is about, and I got it down to 45 words:

the thread is about 'fuck em and leave em' (pick what cherries may be picked) as an imagined scene or real life [adult, legal] activity. it's lately proposed that that activity is of a piece with 'sadism,' though it's vanilla looking-- hence relevant to the forum.

 

[Pure]

Final question:

If you heterosexually --and *without* the whips and chains, cuffs, etc.-- fuck a lot of people, and do so in a cruel, self absorbed manner, does this count as having a sadistic streak? I.e., are you kinked, sadistically? (IOW can a cruel vanilla, be a pervert?)

 

[sunfox]

Final question:

If you heterosexually --and *without* the whips and chains, cuffs, etc.-- fuck a lot of people, and do so in a cruel, self absorbed manner, does this count as having a sadistic streak? I.e., are you kinked, sadistically? (IOW can a cruel vanilla, be a pervert?)

I think so, yes.

People often want to pigeonhole sadism as a purely physical thing, and it isn't. It's about the emotional pain too, and leaving a string of weeping, deserted lovers behind you would cause a considerable amount of pain, I should think.

Ooh. I just got a quiver from thinking about a string of weeping, deserted lovers.

Anyways, there's my two cents. Won't buy much.

 

[Pure]

about that 'quiver', sunnie,



maybe you're putting us on, but if not, any idea _why_ the other's suffering might have a significance in erotic terms?

 

[sunfox]

about that 'quiver', sunnie,



maybe you're putting us on, but if not, any idea _why_ the other's suffering might have a significance in erotic terms?

This may sound horrible.. in fact, it feels horrible to type it... but I liked making people suffer by leaving them without warning, unexpectedly. I felt powerful, and usually a little bit smug.

A kind of 'hah, didn't see this one coming, did you?' sort of situation.

Not to excuse it, because it was cruel and I knew it, but it all began with the person that to this day I still feel was the love of my life... who unfortunately cheated on me with a 'friend' of mine. I broke up with him.. something I've regretted from that day to this, and after that, became something of a maneater for the better part of about eight years. It started to feel good to be the one to leave. Hurt them before they could even conceive of hurting me.

Don't know if I did a good job of explaining it, but there it is.

 

[Pure]

refreshing honesty. it's rare, even among self-labeled sadists of the present day, to admit a joy in inflcting an emotional hurt.