Long term captivity

[subbie_333]

If my dead body would've gotten him off, then I couldn't wait to be a corpse.

Damn, that's like, batshit fucking crazy.

You go Girl

 

[subbie_333]

...when you express that devotion...that total absorption into the will of another...to others who could never hope to understand such a thing, and you express it without shame or apology.

Well see, that's *NOT* batshit fucking crazy.

you go girl

 

[BiBunny]

the problem Bunny, comes in when you express that devotion...that total absorption into the will of another...to others who could never hope to understand such a thing, and you express it without shame or apology. bad, bad girl.

(and thanks for understanding, btw)

Quite welcome.

I don't claim to understand you completely, either, but I do know where you're coming from on the literal "I would die for you if you wanted me to" thing.

I think some of us have dark sides that we may or may not always express, but it's not always Happy Pony Rainbow Land. If that makes me crazy, then I'm crazy. If I'm going to hell for it, well...at least I'll be in good company.

 

[gingermango]

the problem Bunny, comes in when you express that devotion...that total absorption into the will of another...to others who could never hope to understand such a thing, and you express it without shame or apology. bad, bad girl.

(and thanks for understanding, btw)

There's nothing bad about it and I criticized no one for expressing ideas, nor did I criticize anyone for having the idea. I criticized the idea itself of devotion to the point of dying just because the devotee willed it. That's a fine distinction but it's an important one.

I would die for my wife or my children, hell maybe even my fucked up, drug addict felon sister, if it served a real purpose (such as saving them from a real threat to their own lives). But I wouldn't do it for no reason or just because they decided it's the right thing for me to do, without question, world without end, amen.

But I am not attacking anyone as a human being, or anyone's freedom to express whatever they wish. But I do reserve the right to call into question ideas with which I disagree in a polite manner. Put me on "Ignore" if you tire of me raining on everyone's parade, but at least be clear about why you're doing it.

 

[Marquis]

There's nothing bad about it and I criticized no one for expressing ideas, nor did I criticize anyone for having the idea. I criticized the idea itself of devotion to the point of dying just because the devotee willed it. That's a fine distinction but it's an important one.

Is it?

Is it really?

 

[Homburg]

If she's happy and her Daddy's happy, then what does it matter to anyone else? I mean, the kind of relationship she's in wouldn't make me happy, but it's not MY relationship, is it?

This is important, and a very fine line. Some people will tell you that they are happy when you can patently tell that they ar emiserable. This is certainly not the feleing I get from osg, but worth mentioning nonetheless.

That said, I got into a discussion with someone here about osg. The core of my commentary was the same as you posted here. osg, by all appearances, seems bloody happy with her life. That is all that really matters.

Homburg and I were talking the other day. He said to me, "You'd have given [xxx] a Viking funeral and jumped on the burning ship to go down with him." Yes, dammit. I would have. Maybe there's a kind of stupidity or even insanity in that kind of devotion, but it made me happy. What's the problem, then?

My name is Homburg, and I approve of this post.



----

the problem Bunny, comes in when you express that devotion...that total absorption into the will of another...to others who could never hope to understand such a thing, and you express it without shame or apology. bad, bad girl.

(and thanks for understanding, btw)

It really is something that people just can't seem to get.

*shrug* You get it, I get it, Bibunny gets it. A few others get it too. I guess that's what matters.

----

And Netzach's post on edgeplay and safety was awesome. Just had to say that.

 

[gingermango]

Is it?

Is it really?

Yes.

Yes, really.



There are actual distinctions between the messenger, the messenger's act of expressing the message, and the content of the message itself.

At one point a year or two back I thought you had posted comments to the effect that you were or had been a law student. If so, I refer you to legal principles regarding First Amendment jurisprudence and content-neutral restrictions on expression. My position about this is analogous (if reversed in this instance). With the exception of obvious trolls, on this Board I make no value judgment on the person herself or the fact that the person wants to express the idea, whatever the idea is. "Bravo," sez me, "for having the (real or virtual) balls to say what's on your mind." But that cuts both ways - toss out your idea into the aether and be prepared to take criticism as well as praise. After all, I'm bucking the trend here and saying that OSG's post bespeaks a mindset that's unsafe and worrisome to me. And taking the heat for that idea as well, I might add.

So yes, there is a distinction.

 

[BiBunny]

All right, here's my semi-annual tirade in a nutshell.

Nobody here (or anywhere) is the God(dess) of BDSM. There's no reason we have to be PC about everything. I personally think the whole "SSC" bullshit that people like to throw out is just that--bullshit. Just the "C" part is good enough for me. I know it pisses me off if people from Teh Interwebz tell me I'm unhealthy or unstable or whatever. I'll refrain from doing the same to them.

I am not interested in warm and fluffy kink. I am not interested in making it palatable to the masses. I am not interested in having to run everything I do by the rules committee to make sure they approve.

Let's face it. "Least Freakiest of the Freaks" is a dubious honor. No matter which way you slice it, you're still a freak.

 

[nh23]

Bunny and I were just talking..and I mentioned to her that at times I read OSG"s posts and think holy shit..lol. Other times I read them and think..that's me. Either way whatever she has obviously works for her. Some of the things they do may seem extreme, but if I brought up some of the things I've done, or if Bunny brought up some of the things she's done. Well we are responsible for ourselves. No one else. We have to be intelligent enough to do what's best for our situations. Let others use their intelligence to do what they need to do.

 

[Marquis]

Yes.

Yes, really.



There are actual distinctions between the messenger, the messenger's act of expressing the message, and the content of the message itself.

At one point a year or two back I thought you had posted comments to the effect that you were or had been a law student. If so, I refer you to legal principles regarding First Amendment jurisprudence and content-neutral restrictions on expression. My position about this is analogous (if reversed in this instance). With the exception of obvious trolls, on this Board I make no value judgment on the person herself or the fact that the person wants to express the idea, whatever the idea is. "Bravo," sez me, "for having the (real or virtual) balls to say what's on your mind." But that cuts both ways - toss out your idea into the aether and be prepared to take criticism as well as praise. After all, I'm bucking the trend here and saying that OSG's post bespeaks a mindset that's unsafe and worrisome to me. And taking the heat for that idea as well, I might add.

So yes, there is a distinction.

oh my god are you still talking?

 

[FurryFury]

Ah, ok. Thanks for the answer, Fury.

You are quite welcome. It's my pleasure to give a smidgen of help when I can.

 

[FurryFury]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_(TV_series)

hhhmmm This is evil. We need to burn all the Dexter books in the entire world, and, we need to boycott Showtime and CBS. It promotes murder, dysfunctional relationships, comic books, drug use, kidnapping, pyromania, video games, and, your everyday clinical insanity. All of the actors in the series should be prosecuted for their crimes.

huh? what?

You say that this is fiction? Oh, well, never mind.

LMAO!

 

[gingermango]

oh my god are you still talking?

Sez the man with 9,500 posts. Great jumpin' jeebus you are a piece of hypocritical work.

 

[TerragonSix]

No experience on this, as I am not a 24/7er, but a few ideas, from a medical standpoint.

If the sub is to be shackled onto something for a period of time, I would be worried about hydration and food. Since he or she is not going to be allowed release from that particular position for a long time, I would also be worried about how the sub is going to go to the bathroom, or bedsores.

Also, the sub is going to need to be allowed to walk somewhere, (or crawl), in order to keep the muscles active, and not allow them to atrophy.

What if you would have to work? What if your sub is tightly restrained, and a fire would break out in the house? What if they get deathly sick?

..Yeah.

Personally, I wouldn't do something for that amount of time. One full day, maybe two, but that's about it.

 

[intothewoods]

Who's Dexter? A guy on TV? For the most part, I'm culturally ignorant when it comes to that medium.

It's just whenever someone starts posting about sadistic fantasies, it makes me think about what separates a guy with sadistic fantasies from a serial killer. The show is pretty salacious, I think, but it was an interesting idea - an ethical serial killer.

All right, here's my semi-annual tirade in a nutshell.

Nobody here (or anywhere) is the God(dess) of BDSM. There's no reason we have to be PC about everything. I personally think the whole "SSC" bullshit that people like to throw out is just that--bullshit. Just the "C" part is good enough for me. I know it pisses me off if people from Teh Interwebz tell me I'm unhealthy or unstable or whatever. I'll refrain from doing the same to them.

I am not interested in warm and fluffy kink. I am not interested in making it palatable to the masses. I am not interested in having to run everything I do by the rules committee to make sure they approve.

Let's face it. "Least Freakiest of the Freaks" is a dubious honor. No matter which way you slice it, you're still a freak.

Agreed, for the most part, in that as long as you're not hurting anyone else, I don't really give a shit. But I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, that seems unhealthy to me, aside from the fact that it's sort of obvious in some respects (sorry, but who hasn't read an osg post and said WTF at one point - I'm just being honest). So I think it's unhealthy. I'll say so without telling you to stop posting. And seven other people will tell me the shut the fuck up and not to be judgmental. Big whoop. I do get pissed when I learn there are kids involved. And 20 more people will tell me not to tell anyone else how to raise their own kids. Ok. And the world keeps on going.

Yes.

Yes, really.



There are actual distinctions between the messenger, the messenger's act of expressing the message, and the content of the message itself.

At one point a year or two back I thought you had posted comments to the effect that you were or had been a law student. If so, I refer you to legal principles regarding First Amendment jurisprudence and content-neutral restrictions on expression. My position about this is analogous (if reversed in this instance). With the exception of obvious trolls, on this Board I make no value judgment on the person herself or the fact that the person wants to express the idea, whatever the idea is. "Bravo," sez me, "for having the (real or virtual) balls to say what's on your mind." But that cuts both ways - toss out your idea into the aether and be prepared to take criticism as well as praise. After all, I'm bucking the trend here and saying that OSG's post bespeaks a mindset that's unsafe and worrisome to me. And taking the heat for that idea as well, I might add.

So yes, there is a distinction.

Did you just say "content-neutral"? Nerd!

 

[girlofurdreams]

captivity...

i would love nothing more than for Sir Julian to steal me away tonight... i wouldn't care how long for as long as i was near him. today was a difficult day. a very mixed day...

i miss you so very much Sir xxx

 

[FurryFury]

It's just whenever someone starts posting about sadistic fantasies, it makes me think about what separates a guy with sadistic fantasies from a serial killer. The show is pretty salacious, I think, but it was an interesting idea - an ethical serial killer. <snip>

Yes he is.

He has taken on his adoptive father's values. As a result he is cannibalizing, in a sense, his own people. It's very interesting, in a creepy sort of way.

One wonders how far away are we from cheering on a sadistic serial killer of more innocent people?

Also his relationship with his sister, co workers, gf, and her kids is very interesting as he struggles to feel a connection and appear normal.

 

[JMohegan]

I can remember several times when my ex and I were playing really hard and edgy, and he got this look in his eyes that made me just KNOW he was going to kill me.

And you know what? I didn't care. I didn't fucking care. Damn the legality and the consequences and whatever else. If that's what he wanted, then that's what I wanted him to do.

From my perspective, this attitude might be construed as devotion to the part of me I refer to as my inner sadist. However, it would definitely be construed as gross dereliction with respect to me, the total man.

Maybe there's a kind of stupidity or even insanity in that kind of devotion, but it made me happy. What's the problem, then?

Speaking not about your situation, but in general here, I'll describe one problem that may arise.

When a woman lets a man do whatever he desires to her, with no effort to rein him in and no perceptible checks or restraints relating to her welfare or needs, his celebration of her willingness to do so sometimes reaches a point at which it transforms into a lack of respect for her willingness to do so.

And when that point is reached, it is often just a matter of time before the woman is discarded like yesterday's trash.

This may seem unfair, and it surely is. This may seem like a risk that applies solely to vanilla relationships, but it is not.

 

[JMohegan]

It's just whenever someone starts posting about sadistic fantasies, it makes me think about what separates a guy with sadistic fantasies from a serial killer. The show is pretty salacious, I think, but it was an interesting idea - an ethical serial killer.

So he's portrayed as an extreme version of an honorable vigilante? Like spiderman, with blood?

 

[catalina_francisco]

All right, here's my semi-annual tirade in a nutshell.

Nobody here (or anywhere) is the God(dess) of BDSM. There's no reason we have to be PC about everything. I personally think the whole "SSC" bullshit that people like to throw out is just that--bullshit. Just the "C" part is good enough for me. I know it pisses me off if people from Teh Interwebz tell me I'm unhealthy or unstable or whatever. I'll refrain from doing the same to them.

I am not interested in warm and fluffy kink. I am not interested in making it palatable to the masses. I am not interested in having to run everything I do by the rules committee to make sure they approve.

Couldn't agree more. I just don't bother letting it get to me anymore. People are free to think and say what they like, doesn't mean I have to follow their example of what is right just to keep them happy and feeling OK....their happiness is neither my concern or responsibility, his is though.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Speaking not about your situation, but in general here, I'll describe one problem that may arise.

When a woman lets a man do whatever he desires to her, with no effort to rein him in and no perceptible checks or restraints relating to her welfare or needs, his celebration of her willingness to do so sometimes reaches a point at which it transforms into a lack of respect for her willingness to do so.

And when that point is reached, it is often just a matter of time before the woman is discarded like yesterday's trash.

This may seem unfair, and it surely is. This may seem like a risk that applies solely to vanilla relationships, but it is not.

But see, for some this is not seen as a problem, at least not in the way you see it, for some it could be seen as being highly successful and achieving the ultimate. It is subjective to what a person wants, needs, feels, and how that plays out in their journey. As to fair and unfair, one thing F reminds me of constantly is it isn't about being fair....sometimes that works for me, sometimes it doesn't...end result is still the same as he is the one who decides what will be and work, and what I understood before getting myself into a TPE relationship.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

the problem Bunny, comes in when you express that devotion...that total absorption into the will of another...to others who could never hope to understand such a thing, and you express it without shame or apology. bad, bad girl.

(and thanks for understanding, btw)

This also resonates with me, a lot.

I also think people are too literal. Talking about that kind of depth of feeling doesn't necessarily mean you're headed for being a statistic, but it makes people very uncomfortable to hear about love being framed that way, I suppose. I'm not saying it's roleplay or unreal, I'm just saying at a certain point is becomes about YOUR reality not objective reality. When you hold a moment like this up to the ruler of everyday reality it's like doing that with religion or poetry.

But if you've been spun around that way - and in a way "I'm going to kill you" or "I reject you" or "you've disappointed me to the core" or "I'm leaving you" or "I'm hurting you" being alleviated or taken back in some way is the essence of ALL the play we do, just some of it with more padding on the sharp corners.

I don't have the balls to play this out with M. I have too much invested of my own heart, if I broke him or broke US in some way I'd be lost - it's obvious.

 

[intothewoods]

Yes he is.

He has taken on his adoptive father's values. As a result he is cannibalizing, in a sense, his own people. It's very interesting, in a creepy sort of way.

One wonders how far away are we from cheering on a sadistic serial killer of more innocent people?

Also his relationship with his sister, co workers, gf, and her kids is very interesting as he struggles to feel a connection and appear normal.

Yeah, and then what he finds out about his adoptive father...uh, I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but I was only about half interested in this show until watching the final few episodes and the season finale during the writer's strike (rerun on cbs, right?). To me, it went in the direction Sopranos should have gone with morality and what it means to be a family.

So he's portrayed as an extreme version of an honorable vigilante? Like spiderman, with blood?

Yes, except that he's definitely not protrayed as a hero. You do start to feel a connection to this guy, and then think, how fucked up is this? I thought the whole show was too salacious and gimmicky when I saw the first couple of episodes on Showtime. Mister Man and I finally started watching it on its network rerun during the writer's strike and I thought the last half of the season was well done. To me, what's fascinating is this consciously constructed morality by his adoptive father, his relationship and love for his adoptive sister, his connection to his biological family and the interplay with all of that and the question of what his true identity is. What makes a serial killer? Is it in your blood or is it some traumatic event? Or both? What makes us who we are?

ETA: And I think this relates to how I feel when I've read some EG's sadistic fantasies. Not sexual sadism. Sadism sadism.

Do all men (and some women) have violent fantasies of some level, and only the psycopathic ones act on them?

I feel like the male sadistic thing is a whole different animal than the feminine version, but I don't know. I have to go re-read Netzach's captivity post again...

 

[Netzach]

From my perspective, this attitude might be construed as devotion to the part of me I refer to as my inner sadist. However, it would definitely be construed as gross dereliction with respect to me, the total man.



Speaking not about your situation, but in general here, I'll describe one problem that may arise.

When a woman lets a man do whatever he desires to her, with no effort to rein him in and no perceptible checks or restraints relating to her welfare or needs, his celebration of her willingness to do so sometimes reaches a point at which it transforms into a lack of respect for her willingness to do so.

And when that point is reached, it is often just a matter of time before the woman is discarded like yesterday's trash.

This may seem unfair, and it surely is. This may seem like a risk that applies solely to vanilla relationships, but it is not.

For me both those things co-exist at all times with H.

As you can imagine. It reads differently with a woman and a man.

And I've made it perfectly clear that he gets as much or as little of me as I pick. I may just not call anymore. Them's the breaks. He *knows* that.

At times it's the source of the hard on.

 

[Netzach]

Yeah, and then what he finds out about his adoptive father...uh, I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but I was only about half interested in this show until watching the final few episodes and the season finale during the writer's strike (rerun on cbs, right?). To me, it went in the direction Sopranos should have gone with morality and what it means to be a family.




Yes, except that he's definitely not protrayed as a hero. You do start to feel a connection to this guy, and then think, how fucked up is this? I thought the whole show was too salacious and gimmicky when I saw the first couple of episodes on Showtime. Mister Man and I finally started watching it on its network rerun during the writer's strike and I thought the last half of the season was well done. To me, what's fascinating is this consciously constructed morality by his adoptive father, his relationship and love for his adoptive sister, his connection to his biological family and the interplay with all of that and the question of what his true identity is. What makes a serial killer? Is it in your blood or is it some traumatic event? Or both? What makes us who we are?

ETA: And I think this relates to how I feel when I've read some EG's sadistic fantasies. Not sexual sadism. Sadism sadism.

Do all men (and some women) have violent fantasies of some level, and only the psycopathic ones act on them?

I feel like the male sadistic thing is a whole different animal than the feminine version, but I don't know. I have to go re-read Netzach's captivity post again...

I'm a psycho sadist. I get guilty-wet reading not about the beatings and the electrocutions of political prisoners but about the desperation, the writing on sheets, the drawing on walls, the terrified and defiant hours confined.

Bondage+cracking ego = perfect.

I'm also really REALLY fascinated by the "good cop" interrogation style. Befriending and betraying. Isn't that the worst of all?