New paradigm

[Pure]

N, I was going to express my admiration for that humiliation scenario. Excellent to have someone 'shoot down' the mister.

(With the colloboration of the other, getting her to string him along to the point of penetration, even more would be possible.)

However, as you say,

//I know just laying out the task made this sissypants hard as a rock, and I do actually *like* the fellow a tremendous deal.//

There is an overall benevolent goal (of which he may well be aware), and you're a bit like the 'mom' who makes a kid practice piano.

 

[Netzach]

I guess I would be more sucessful as a Dominant if I made him practise piano then, Pure. Of course I happen to find that notion utterly boring, but in the interest of "real" Domination, I'd better come up with a long list of things he hates and abhors just so I feel like I'm doing it right.

Yes it made him hard. That's not why I did it. I did it because it also happens to make me wet. Should I opt for doing things that could never ever God forbid, excite my submissive, even if I want to do them? I'm not getting it.


I'll stick to wiping noses and changing diapers in your estimation then, I find it a bit more fun.

 

[rosco rathbone]

My reasoning and he knew it and I knew it was not to improve his ability to force himself to be an extrovert. No. It was purely for him to feel the sting and humiliation of a real rejection.

Now, the girl who's not in the loop is doing some of my dirty work for me without knowing it, and she'll live, it's not like he'll intimidate her, just cause her to roll her eyes and say something catty. However I'm the motor. I relish the blow to his ego, cementing the notion that a woman in her right mind will have nothing to do with him and he's lucky for the heaps of attention I do lavish.

THIS is the truly perverse, hard-core shit.

 

[RJMasters]

First like to say thanks for what I take as a compliment in your last paragraph, and don't mind at all trying to explain my world. I'll try to brief.

Any online limits are just an illusion created to fulfill some kind of need. If you are hurt or upset by anything that comes through the computer from someone you have never met in person, then you are doing it to yourself.


I don't agree, but understand why you say, and probably would give this advice for most people. The Internet is definately not a safeplay ground. However, I think it is also true that many people develop good, close and lasting friendships. What I will attempt to get you to see from "my perspective" is that I am a "If this is true, then that is also equally true" kinda of guy. Not dogmatic about it, but it often is more true than not and serves me well in my thinking.

Anyways, these relationships(the good ones) online are built like any other...over time, and on trust and acceptance. The feelings of love and respect for the other person sitting behind the other keyboard are very real. Hence the violation of trust can also bring real pain. This is not pain you bring on yourself, but it is imposed upon you by a breach of love and trust by someone close to you. You may question the wisdom of opening yourself up to someone on the Internet or mentally and emotional getting involved with them, and I can agree that no relationship should be entered into commonly. I do think, that over periods of time, people can have real relationships online meaning the feelings they have for the other person is real, but how is this really any differnt in a RL relationship? To say that you bring this pain on yourself, in my way of thinking is equivalnt to saying in a RL relationship to someone who is hurt, "Well you should have known better than to let yourself have real feelings for this person".

The second aspect of this I will try to share is me. I have always believed that a whole person consists of mind, body and heart. I think that all three of these things should try to remain together on the same page at all times(lol). Which presents a problem for me about online relationships as obviously the body seems to be left out(but 2 out of three ain't bad ) However, I also put a greater importance on the mind and heart than I do the body. Sorta like the "inner me" if you get what I am saying. For me the body is merely a shell that houses who I truely am as a person.

Ok So with those things laid out there, I think that once you past a certain point in a relationship with a person online, where feelings have become real, then it opens up the door for real love, joy, excitement and equally hate, sadness, and pain.

To the degree....that love or pain is "Real" to you, is the degree it can impact your life for GOOD or BAD weather online or in RL.

The mental exchange between two online can be very powerful depending on the people involved. Hence I see a very real need for limits. "For me" These limits should align with your real limits in real life. If in real life one of your limits is not to be given to be used by another, then in any online relationship you enter into, that should be stated clearly. (Remember, this is not just play, but after real emotional ties, friendship and love have been established on trust over time between two). So then, the limit is stated, but then say after a month or so, the person whom you trusted decides to bring in a third person for a threesome. You balk at it, but the person insists, and your too stupid to walk away or say no. So it happens, and emotionaly and mentally you have been just ripped. Real pain. Very Real.

You would think ok, then walk away right, but easier said than done, in RL or Online when there is real emotional commitment at stake. I am not saying this is good, just saying sometimes we don't know when to say when and we get caught. Happens all the time in RL. When you put your trust in someone you always take a risk that, that person will break that trust weather RL or Online. Because domination and submission is largely mental in nature as expressed by many on this forum, I think it is not hard to see how a real D/s relationship can take place. A well timed mental smack across the face, can sometimes have more of an effect than a physical one can. There is nothing sweeter than to have your online sub go into sub space in complete surrender. Very real for her and very real for you.

So in conclusion: If two people take the time to build an online relationship, where real exchanges of emotions takes place, then it is possible to cause real pain to the other person sitting behind the keyboard. I don't think setting limits are illusionary if they match those limits in real life, and what I as a person expect a person to respect in RL as a limit, I also expect them to respect my intellect and emotional state online in the same way.


You do seem to be a deep sort of guy & sort of nice too, but in a Dom way of course. You seem to think everything through to the last detail & from every possible angle, so it surprises me that you would allow yourself to feel hurt in that way.

This was a very confusing time in my life. Since that time I have grown and practice more safely. I have learned since then, that you can walk away if you feel you are being abused, at the time I didn't think that was an option and no one decided I needed to know that.

I don't expect to change your mind or even try to convince you what or how you think about Online relationships, but as you said I am a deep sort of guy & sort of nice too, which can either be a really really bad thing, or a really really good thing for myself and those who decide to take the time to develop a close relationship with me in RL or online.

Forgive the long post, it is probably more than you wanted or cared to know. I hope though I in someway answered your question or at least offered you a chance to see through my eyes on a few things.

 

[Netzach]

THIS is the truly perverse, hard-core shit.

Why, I'm flattered.

I don't think it's more perverse than the other more SM standard issue things I do, but it's a nice psy twist and adds a bit to the proceedings.

I suppose the thing that makes me a much better fetishist than Domme in certain estimations is the fact that most of the things I enjoy are enjoyed by those I do them with. That's not the same as the opposite, I believe.

I see this not as some innate desire to cater to people, I see this rather as the fact that I tend to enjoy a really huge smorgasboard of activity. There are few things I don't find interesting or compelling, and few things that don't make me hornier. It's the fetishist problem -- if I put someone in a closet and tell her licking the wall is the closest she's getting to me all night and I hear her moaning in there, that's my idea of a grand time. I *know* she's got herself sexually frenzied and loves it, I also love it. If she cried, I might laugh. If she just sat there and pouted I'd be bored stiff.

I don't think mutuality is always something we sit down and negotiate in advance. "Hey, are you going to like it if I put this pin through your scrotum, because you know, if you can leave it, I can leave it, we can do the toe sucking thing instead cause I know you're on the same page as me..." Hell, I don't even do that with clients I *do* choose to work with in a "service provider" mode and I don't work that way with every client.

I'd even warrant, that for you, RR, there's a certain amount of pleasure to be found in the enjoyment of your "victim's" situations and usages, the fact that she does not want to be aroused but is, does not want to enjoy subjecting herself to your various indignities, but does - not just subjects herself, but enjoys it heartily, yea, verily, through her runny nosed sniveling.

I could be completely off base, but I know your demonic-playful side enough to think I'm not.

 

[FungiUg]

So do we need to convene a panel of judges and award points on various elements of Dom/me-ness?

"I give Netzach a 9 for Fetishism, a 4 for Domme, and an 8 for general cuteness and squidginess. 2 for Scary." (you gotta watch those Russian judges though...)

 

[rosco rathbone]

So do we need to convene a panel of judges and award points on various elements of Dom/me-ness?

"I give Netzach a 9 for Fetishism, a 4 for Domme, and an 8 for general cuteness and squidginess. 2 for Scary." (you gotta watch those Russian judges though...)

Netz is the real deal. Take notes, class, this will all be on the weekly quiz.

 

[rosco rathbone]

.

I'd even warrant, that for you, RR, there's a certain amount of pleasure to be found in the enjoyment of your "victim's" situations and usages, the fact that she does not want to be aroused but is, does not want to enjoy subjecting herself to your various indignities, but does - not just subjects herself, but enjoys it heartily, yea, verily, through her runny nosed sniveling.

I could be completely off base, but I know your demonic-playful side enough to think I'm not.

Of course.

 

[Pure]

Netzach said, I tend to enjoy a really huge smorgasboard of activity. There are few things I don't find interesting or compelling, and few things that don't make me hornier. It's the fetishist problem -- if I put someone in a closet and tell her licking the wall is the closest she's getting to me all night and I hear her moaning in there, that's my idea of a grand time. I *know* she's got herself sexually frenzied and loves it, I also love it. If she cried, I might laugh. If she just sat there and pouted I'd be bored stiff.

Sounds good to me, N, I'm very fetichistic myself. Mutualistic fetich frolics seem fine to me. (Don't mistake my 'ragging' the power and pretense issues.)

FU said, "I give Netzach a 9 for Fetishism, a 4 for Domme, and an 8 for general cuteness and squidginess. 2 for Scary."

I know it's meant as sarcasm, but indeed each person's activities fall on a number of scales; there are no 'pure' types.


Incidentally, I give N an 8 for fetich, 8 for domme, 7 for cuteness, and 6 for scary.

 

[s'lara]

Wow, that's very carteisian of you, Pure.

And if I think we operated like that below the belt and in the heart chakras, I'd say you were right it's like a math equation or any collegiate logic course.

I don't think we do.

It works one way for catalina, it works another way for a gentleman I'm rather fond of. Recently I told him to go hit on a woman he knew was completely out of his 50 something nerdish league. Could be anyone, she just had to appear bitchy, hot, under 30 but over 18 and someone he would lust after at a polite distance but never dream of approaching. This is also a socially shy person who doesn't hit on people.

My reasoning and he knew it and I knew it was not to improve his ability to force himself to be an extrovert. No. It was purely for him to feel the sting and humiliation of a real rejection.

Now, the girl who's not in the loop is doing some of my dirty work for me without knowing it, and she'll live, it's not like he'll intimidate her, just cause her to roll her eyes and say something catty. However I'm the motor. I relish the blow to his ego, cementing the notion that a woman in her right mind will have nothing to do with him and he's lucky for the heaps of attention I do lavish.

Not exactly a Dr. Phil moment of good healthy fun. But it's fun for both of us, I know just laying out the task made this sissypants hard as a rock, and I do actually *like* the fellow a tremendous deal.

i like the cruelty factor here -- from the masochistic side of me that is. No, it isn't nice. It selfishly indulges your perversity and simultaneously assauges his need for treatment of this kind; a sadistic (no surprise) and mean disregard for his ego and a savage little dig at his confidence.

Cookie-cutter sadism is not always appealing and i am hard pressed to understand why sadism should be viewed as "good" or "healthy." Cruelty is wrong, but it does feed a need for those of us who enjoy it from a giving or receiving end. Addictive as well.

The worst thing though? You (the receiver of the above scenario) can't get past the cringe-factor when it's replayed in your mind and that shrinking of self is entangled with sexual arousal. So you continue to do the hamster on the wheel run -- "Christ, i was so humiliated, i feel like an idiot" ... "Can't believe she made me do that, i don't know why it feels good" ... "Will she make me do this again?" ... "i want to do it again. Yeah, yeah" ... "But, Christ, i was so embarassed" -- and so on. Vicious circle and you're conflicted, turned on and stoking the need all over again.

As to Red's questions, (sorry for the hijack), i wasn't interested in switching, but i don't think you should allow the perceptions of others to taint how you move through your explorations in this culture. i do believe challenging the accepted norm can be cathartic in nature and maybe you will find your middle ground as you prod boundaries. i wish you luck and admire your will to try find your own niche.

lara

 

[Pure]

lara: // Cruelty is wrong,//

Yeah, but so is fucking, swearing, whoring and rock-and-roll-ing

Tell me this, if God wanted cruelty to be wrong, why did he make it so much fun? (giving or receiving).

 

[Netzach]

fucking swearing whoring and rock n' rolling, unless you punch your hookers routinely, are not crimes of person.

That's the difference, it's not just badass, to be cruel *is* to be badly behaved.

 

[s'lara]

lara: // Cruelty is wrong,//

Yeah, but so is fucking, swearing, whoring and rock-and-roll-ing

Tell me this, if God wanted cruelty to be wrong, why did he make it so much fun? (giving or receiving).

You're preaching to converted on this one P. Bottom line, it's wrong, but for someone who enjoys it (giving or receiving), the wrong or right issue is inconsequential. Thought i said as much with this statement in it's entirety: "Cookie-cutter sadism is not always appealing and i am hard pressed to understand why sadism should be viewed as "good" or "healthy." Cruelty is wrong, but it does feed a need for those of us who enjoy it from a giving or receiving end. Addictive as well."

Who said God wanted cruelty to be wrong? You have direct line to him/her that tells you he/she views cruelty as wrong or is it your assumption that my views on cruelty are motivated by some religious conditioning? Let me nip that in the bud here ... i view cruelty as wrong based on the fact that it can harm/hurt an individual irreparably if done so without express consent or if the need for such treament isn't already present. However, to be on the receiving end of cruelty is what spins my wheels and even that reaction is unmotivated by my religious upbringing.

Just because something is fun, doesn't mean it's right Pure and that's a pretty elementary deduction. We, those of us who like cruelty, are attracted to it because on some level we know it's wrong to treat/be treated in this fashion. That's the allure. Cruelty isn't nice, savvy or even sophisticated, it's just an act or a series of acts meant to hurt another with the intention to cause harm. As i said, it works for those who need it and that's cool.

lara

 

[Pure]

Netzach: //to be cruel *is* to be badly behaved.//

I suppose next you'll say you're against bad behavior!

 

[Pure]

lara said,

//i view cruelty as wrong based on the fact that it can harm/hurt an individual irreparably if done so without express consent or if the need for such treament isn't already present. However, to be on the receiving end of cruelty is what spins my wheels and even that reaction is unmotivated by my religious upbringing. //

i somewhat agree with the drift of your post, but some of it seems confusing.

i fail to see how 'consent' and 'need' eliminate harm in all cases.
(though obviously genuine 'consent' precludes rape, by definition).

take the German fellow Miewes, who, with a person's consent (presumably based on some weird need; i.e., the person expected it would 'spin his wheels'), ate that person.

wasn't that person harmed?

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Back to semantics games again Pure? In your own words

... you're homogenizing a complex picture. all parts of life (sic), and all activities in it are not the same

so why the dissection?

At least one person told you

... if I think we operated like that below the belt and in the heart chakras, I'd say you were right it's like a math equation or any collegiate logic course.

I don't think we do.

and you've made your position known on lovey dovey BDSM. As for de Sade, i might find a lovely fiction piece i read once for you to get your jollies over his final comeuppance. Now where did i leave that "in Hell" series?

While i enjoy your posts on occasion for incisive thinking, the quibbling with others detract and derail the discussion in others. A wise individual knows when to hold back their brillant intellect and logic once someone spills a contradiction between the head, heart, and crotch. The phrase "when you have them by the balls," feel free to substitute your choice of female genitalia for all-inclusiveness, "their hearts and minds will follow," strikes hard for a reason.

In the meantime, try the word deport ... click me. Merriam Webster's synonyms should put you in tizzy. And yeah, i edited ... just for you.

 

[Netzach]

Netzach: //to be cruel *is* to be badly behaved.//

I suppose next you'll say you're against bad behavior!

I would not hold my breath on that one.

I just take it as a part of life, it's not my single point and purpose in it.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Sadism is neither good nor wrong; it is not healthy or unhealthy. I am a sadist because I am, it is part of my personality and according to me I am genetically programmed as a Sadist. It’s part of my gene pool just as homosexuality is to others. Some say that homosexuality is a sickness that needs to be cured, I disagree but I am aware that some say the same about sadism and masochism.

Driving a car is not an evil act, driving a car into a crowd with the intention to kill as many as you can is. Picking up a gun to shoot a deer to feed your starving family would not by seen by most as an evil act, picking up that same rifle, walking into a classroom and killing a dozen classmates is.

Caning my wife until she can not sit for days normally and feeding her masochistic need is not a cruel act in my eyes, kidnapping a stranger putting her in a dungeon and caning her into submission is cruel in my eyes.

Cruel is a word that carries a moral judgement with it, just because something is fun to do does not mean it is bad or cruel. To not feed the need of my partner I would consider cruel. To have the means to help another and not help them is in my book considered wrong and cruel. Just because I like helping my partner and it is considered wrong and cruel by some it does not make it so.

Although we often like to fantasize about dark dungeons and being bad mother fuckers the truth of it is that we are not, the majority of us are ’normal’ people who are sadist or masochist.

Francisco.

 

[Netzach]

Thanks, I think that really does make my point.

I don't think my socialization leaves me unimaginitive.

I don't think that my socialization leaves me wussy.

I don't think that my desire for clearly stated consent makes me unadventurous.

I don't think my desire to stop when I've had enough even if someone else might see it as too soon negates my sadism.

I don't think the cruelty and the unfairness of the world at large really has all that much to do with SM, doesn't really inform it for me. I see it as a specific set of behaviors located in a specific subculture. Some story about a woman being raped that happens to turn me on, really isn't necessarily exemplar of anything within it, or germane to my next scene, as I see it.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Wat: You have been weighed
Roland: You have been measured
Kate: And you have absolutely...
Chaucer: Been found wanting.

Hey Netzi?

You playing Kate, or Chaucer in this one?

 

[s'lara]

Leave for a night and see the resulting germination.

Pure -

i agree that harm is present should someone successfully inflict an act meant to cause damage. i also agree that consent or need does not negate the ability to harm someone or to be the recipient of harm. Whether that harm is unwanted in its receipt, and is a result of a non-consensual event, is my sticking point in terms of the "wrongness" i spoke of above. i see there were some examples provided on the differences between "evil" cruelty and "non-evil" cruelty and i thought they illustrated those differences fairly simply.

With Miewes, i think we can both agree that death is an irreparable harm. When cruelty is unwanted and/or permanent beyond what is consensually tolerable for the recipient than yes, imo, that's wrong. Simply, that's my definition of wrong in terms of cruelty.

Hopefully, i was able to bring our (you and i Pure) initial discussion (whether cruelty is right or wrong) back to the its beginning. Topics evolve and if i am unclear in my statements, i don't mind clarifying or trying to make myself understood. i hope you (Pure) have a better understanding of why cruelty, under the conditions i spoke of, is wrong to me.

lara

 

[Netzach]

Wat: You have been weighed
Roland: You have been measured
Kate: And you have absolutely...
Chaucer: Been found wanting.

Hey Netzi?

You playing Kate, or Chaucer in this one?

You're always so cutely naughty when you're cryptic, you know that?

 

[AngelicAssassin]

You're always so cutely naughty when you're cryptic, you know that?

Guess i get Chaucer then, although i think i'll keep my clothes on for the event.

 

[snowy ciara]

You're always so cutely naughty when you're cryptic, you know that?

smiling at the scary ones cause I got it ..

 

[catalina_francisco]

By Friedrich Nietzsche - The morality of voluntary suffering.
The enjoyment of cruelty; and in these circumstances it is even accounted among the virtues of such a soul if it is inventive and insatiable in cruelty. The community feels refreshed by cruel deeds, and casts off for once the gloom of continual anxiety and caution. Cruelty belongs to the most ancient festive joys of mankind. Hence one supposes that the gods, too, feel refreshed and festive when one offers them the sight of cruelty; and so the idea creeps into the world that voluntary suffering, torture one has chosen oneself, has value and makes good sense.

Cruelty is as according to Nietzsche a state to be desired; torture has value and makes good sense. We could actually use Nietzsche statement to justify BDSM, although that is not what Nietzsche had in mind I am sure.

One of the most common pictures of BDSM is that of a helpless women tied up and brutally assaulted by a man. This is as accurate as that of sex being a woman being used purely for the man’s pleasure. The common view in the vanilla world is that BDSM has nothing to do with consent, safety and pleasure, terminology that is not associated with cruelty. Cruelty implies non consensual sex where the pleasure derived comes from abusing your victim, in my own definition of BDSM cruelty has no place.

BDSM does not revolve around a dominant partner who is nasty and cruel and a submissive partner who is powerless and servile. BDSM is about pleasure and enjoyment, be it that for some the pleasure and enjoyment comes out of pain. BDSM is to me not about hurting innocent victims, scarring them physically or mentally, rape or torture. BDSM is not about whipping your partner bloody, humiliating them and leaving them shattered on the floor, it can all be part of it but to me that is just a part of the whole picture. BDSM is about the fulfilment of needs, those of your partner and by fulfilling their needs fulfilling your own, of course this is my definition on BDSM.

Every person has their own view on the world and has their own values. Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he'll be a mile away - and barefoot. ;-)

Labelling is a necessity in this world but labelling other with your own views is dangerous and if at all possible should be avoided.

Francisco.