New paradigm

[RJMasters]

Well said Francisco

I agree.

Added comment...

To me, BDSM is an individual's pursuit for pleasure and contentment.

For me personaly, that pleasure is derived mostly through the power exchange that takes place between two people. The means of that power exchange can take on many different ways of expression. The "way" is not as important as is the Safe, Sane and Consentualness of it.

I often feel we limit our thinking to "the scene", when in actuality a good part of life is lived outside of "the scene". Too often we become "scene" junkies living from fix to fix. Much of what goes on in a "scene" cannot be lived in a 24/7 way.

There is for me a quieter more gentle side to D/s which I enjoy. In this, the power exchange often has little to do sex or pain, and more to do with honoring, loving and respect.

This brings consistancy and stability into a relationship, which over time establishes trust.

Creulty has no such place in or outside the scene for me. For my motives to be pure and correct "for me" I follow two simple rules. Never strike another in anger and never strike another purely for selfishness.

It is said often on this forum "To be used for my partner's pleasure". This does not imply selfishness on the part of the dominant in the using of his partner, this implies consent to be used in order that both get something.

Enjoyed your comments Francisco thanks.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Thank you RJMasters,

If I can return the compliment have enjoyed reading your post and many other posts you have made.

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

I think Francisco made some good points, in arguing that 'sadism' per se is not 'wrong.' lara's position, that it's wrong but appealing is harder to make out.

In particular, he says:
Cruel is a word that carries a moral judgement with it,

I'm not sure if this is true, by the dictionary, but it clarifies his thinking and argument and is an excellent point. Francisco uses the approach:

A: Cruelty is the infliction of suffering in an immoral way, or in an immoral context.

I myself, tend towards a neutral definition,

B. Cruelty is the infliction of suffering (without an immediate benevolent objective [as seen by the sufferer], as in proper surgery).

Approach A renders discussion of morality of 'cruelty' pointless. Just as discussing the lawfullness of 'murder' (as opposed to killing) is pointless. "(Immoral) cruelty is immoral." "Unlawful killing [=murder] is unlawful." One would have to introduce a neutral term or phrase, to have a discussion, e.g., infliction of suffering.

=====

Of course I have no objection to those living lives of purity and correctness, those showing universal unselfishness which even permeates their 'dominate' sexual activities. (Assuming, ftsoa, it *is* so, and wondering about the 'unselfish' who continually remind others of their gift.)

Indeed they raise the moral 'tone' of a society.

RJM: For my motives to be pure and correct "for me" I follow two simple rules. Never strike another in anger and never strike another purely for selfishness.

I just don't think all deviant--not to say, 'ordinary'-- sex is so squeaky clean-- from my 'impure' pov down here in the gutter.

J.

 

[Netzach]

I am constantly striking other people for selfish reasons, the fact that they happen to like it means I don't have to hold them down as well, duh.



*practically socialized*

~N.

 

[TaintedB]

Originally posted by 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?

I think you're right. Consent and need very clearly do not eliminate harm in all cases (and maybe not in most cases when it comes to submissives) and you don't even have to turn to extreme examples like cannibalism to prove it. Submissiveness is not very accepted in our overall culture: it's looked down upon, disdained, and children who act naturally submissive are often forced to hide it to avoid all the negative reactions they get. As a result, many submissive men and women grow up to be pretty emotionally screwed-up adults. They've been told by everyone around them that who they are is hateful, so they hate themselves. Many have have their gentle agreeable natures so taken advantage of and have been so abused, that as adults they seek to reenact those abusive sick situations. And yeah, sometimes sick, destructive situations turn them on sexually, but that doesn't mean that their feeling hot will negate or even allieviate the harm being done to their personhood, to the good and wonderful parts of their personality, by genuinely cruel behavior. Submissives, on average, seem to be very confused people when it comes to deteriming what is good for them and I have no respect for equally ignorant or callous "dominants" who take advantage of that confusion in order to get their own rocks off.

I'm not talking about sexual sadism, btw. I'm talking about acts that cause actual, permanent harm to a person's body or emotions, like tearing down even further an already shaky sense of self-worth. A lot of people in this forum were shocked at apparently self-destructive tendencies of a woman who wanted to have her clit removed. But a guy who wants to have his sense of himself as a worthwhile human being ground into the dirt, well fuck that's just what submissive men do, so why not indulge them and cruelly/kewlly enjoy the increase in their personal self-loathing? To me, however, such urges--to have the good part of yourself destroyed (as opposed to some false overblown egotistical part)--are, in a submissive, as destructive as wanting to have a body part cut off. In male submissives, the situation is even more complicated, because in a lot of cases their submitting to a woman who mistreats them is a reinforcement of a generalized old-fashioned misogyny, a belief that women are hateful evil disgusting creatures, objects and caricatures, not real human beings.

A related idea I've been thinking about: Have you ever wondered why women don't often parade around in ultra-masculine exaggerated appearance, looking like over-muscled, hairy total studs, and reveling in the deep humiliation of being thought of as a man? Sure there are a few exceptions, there always are, but in general the concept of feeling humiliated because one appears to be male is an extremely foreign idea to most men and women. But for a man to prance around in public dressed like an ultra-feminine frilly-drawers woman? Oh the shame of being thought to be female! (And, oh the misogyny involved in seeing being thought of as a woman as such a shameful and humiliating state.)

Taint

 

[Quint]

True. If I wore some of my boyfriend's clothes, I'd look adorable. Humiliation for me would be being forced to dress in an unstylish or tacky female outfit.

I'm immensely enjoying the twists of this thread.

 

[RJMasters]

True. If I wore some of my boyfriend's clothes, I'd look adorable. Humiliation for me would be being forced to dress in an unstylish or tacky female outfit.

I'm immensely enjoying the twists of this thread.

[8-BIT HYJACK]
What ever happens, I mustn't let them see the evidence....and them old folk...hell, they had it coming...so I am not apoligizing for that...no way...quickly puts lid on garbage can in alley. [/8-BITHYJACK]

 

[Quint]

But…wait. If we’re giant-sized, then that means that swords are no bigger than toothpicks to me! Toothpicks, BM, toothpicks! I can’t very well go around saying “I like toothpicks,” now can I? It makes no damn sense! I’m a fighter, not a…food stuck…toothing…guy! I don’t eat corn on the cob, what do I need with toothpicks! No cob, Black Mage! Cob-less! The kids could call me “Fighter ‘No Cob’ McGee,” and if McGee were my last name then it would be perfectly accurate!

 

[catalina_francisco]

I am constantly striking other people for selfish reasons, the fact that they happen to like it means I don't have to hold them down as well, duh.



*practically socialized*

~N.

You know I have figured out your secret, you play this angry scary amoral Domme. But I think you are one of the most protective and compasionate Domme's. Like RR said you are the real thing, duh.

Francisco.

 

[Netzach]

*sob* It's true it's true, I am the nicest person you could want to stick a needle through your nipple or yank your clover clamps right off with a smile.

Angry scary?

I don't think I try for those too often, really.

I do think that there's something kind of dark in the way I love all the marks and bruises I leave and the fact that hitting people makes me happy.

Moral maybe, limited by mores, not wildly, not as much as Pure might seem to suggest I am certainly not hung up on church lady stuff. I mean, heck, I gave up on the idea of having a normal resume.

 

[Pure]

Netzach It's true it's true, I am the nicest person you could want to stick a needle through your nipple or yank your clover clamps right off with a smile.

The Marquis de Sade was 'nice'--a gentleman, very polite, well mannered.

Inside a locked room with implicitly consenting partners, it was a different story, though no one was permanently harmed.

Again, the difference around this forum is between roughly two camps with blurry boundaries: some have ensured that the 'niceness' existing in their lives, permeates all their sexual encounters. That is what they say. (see RJM, above, for example).

And for others 'niceness' is the social role with outside society, NOT all sex partners.

It seems to me that Netzach is more towards the latter.

For many 'dominate' persons, it's hard to tell, with cyber evidence only: They blow the macho selfish sadist horn at times, and bang the gentleman Uber-civilized, and 'considerate' xylophone, at others, and for other segments of the audience.

 

[catalina_francisco]

For many 'dominate' persons, it's hard to tell, with cyber evidence only: They blow the macho selfish sadist horn at times, and bang the gentleman Uber-civilized, and 'considerate' xylophone, at others, and for other segments of the audience.

Or perhaps it is more simple Pure.....most people are a myriad of emotions and behaviours, no 2 sets exactly the same, nor behaviour 100% beige or uniform in all situations...IMHO it is what makes those seemingly dichotomous creatures not only unique as individuals, but interesting and more real than those who struggle to be one way only 100% of the time, usually burying deep those parts of them that try to reach the surface to gasp some fresh air. Try as they might, I have yet to be convinced the human character can be dissected, analysed, characterised, and explained like a scientific experiment in a lab.....most healthy cognitively functioning people do have sets of behaviour which suit particular situations but not others, and even then, can be known to deviate from their 'normal' behaviour under set circumstances, predictable or otherwise...all the parts put together make the whole.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

For many 'dominate' persons, it's hard to tell, with cyber evidence only: They blow the macho selfish sadist horn at times, and bang the gentleman Uber-civilized, and 'considerate' xylophone, at others, and for other segments of the audience. [/B]

Which is pretty much why I see SM as a Jungian faceted kind of thing, a parallel reality. I'm not so sold on the idea of authenticity all the time, as you know, and I have often talked about the sense that when I'm playing I feel like I'm stepping aside for something much bigger than myself, enacting something on a symbolic level. Nice place to visit wouldn't wanna live there.

 

[RJMasters]

For many 'dominate' persons, it's hard to tell, with cyber evidence only: They blow the macho selfish sadist horn at times, and bang the gentleman Uber-civilized, and 'considerate' xylophone, at others, and for other segments of the audience.

You say this...like it's a bad thing.

Or perhaps it is more simple Pure.....most people are a myriad of emotions and behaviours, no 2 sets exactly the same, nor behaviour 100% beige or uniform in all situations...IMHO it is what makes those seemingly dichotomous creatures not only unique as individuals, but interesting and more real than those who struggle to be one way only 100% of the time, usually burying deep those parts of them that try to reach the surface to gasp some fresh air. Try as they might, I have yet to be convinced the human character can be dissected, analysed, characterised, and explained like a scientific experiment in a lab.....most healthy cognitively functioning people do have sets of behaviour which suit particular situations but not others, and even then, can be known to deviate from their 'normal' behaviour under set circumstances, predictable or otherwise...all the parts put together make the whole.

X12

Beautifully said.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I am not a great aficionado or advocate of Carl Jung, he is too abstract for me, must be because my superior function is rationality. Not to say he was wrong just that his theories are too removed from my reality.

Francisco.

 

[TaintedB]

Originally posted by Quint
True. If I wore some of my boyfriend's clothes, I'd look adorable. Humiliation for me would be being forced to dress in an unstylish or tacky female outfit.

I'm immensely enjoying the twists of this thread.

Any women here ever take crossdressing so far that they pasted on a false beard or moustache? Kim Bassinger looked pretty cute in the one she sported in 9.5 weeks. Kind of fey.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Any women here ever take crossdressing so far that they pasted on a false beard or moustache? Kim Bassinger looked pretty cute in the one she sported in 9.5 weeks. Kind of fey.

LOL, Kim looks mmmm in or out of anything I think.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

N: //a Jungian faceted kind of thing, a parallel reality.//

Sounds like a good job description for your card.
"A Jungian faceted, parallel domme."

I myself would not use the term 'parallel,' for the symbolic penetrates the 'real' or 'everyday' quite thoroughly. And all our sexual enactments are freighted with fantasy.

Consider:
Our fantasies are not bound by morality, but involve cruelty, aggression, sexual excess, etc.

Our sexual activities are permeated with--and driven by-- these fantasies.

Hence the presentation of our sexual activities as invariably civilized, gentlemanly, 'considerate' is simply an implausible moral cloak.

 

[Pure]

Hi Taint,
Those are intriguing thoughts. If I may respond to a couple:

T:

Submissiveness is not very accepted in our overall culture: it's looked down upon, disdained, and children who act naturally submissive are often forced to hide it to avoid all the negative reactions they get. As a result, many submissive men and women grow up to be pretty emotionally screwed-up adults. They've been told by everyone around them that who they are is hateful, so they hate themselves. Many have have their gentle agreeable natures so taken advantage of and have been so abused, that as adults they seek to reenact those abusive sick situations. And yeah, sometimes sick, destructive situations turn them on sexually, but that doesn't mean that their feeling hot will negate or even allieviate the harm being done to their personhood, to the good and wonderful parts of their personality, by genuinely cruel behavior. Submissives, on average, seem to be very confused people when it comes to deteriming what is good for them
---

I respond: Within a legal and mainstream psychological framework, this is a good point. The law refuses to see some 'consents' as truly that, because of the harm involved. It's assumed 'you cant consent to serious bodily harm' [i.e., where there is no larger benevolent objective, as in saving your life, through having a gangrenous leg cut off.]

T: A lot of people in this forum were shocked at apparently self-destructive tendencies of a woman who wanted to have her clit removed. But a guy who wants to have his sense of himself as a worthwhile human being ground into the dirt, well fuck that's just what submissive men do, so why not indulge them and cruelly/kewlly enjoy the increase in their personal self-loathing? To me, however, such urges--to have the good part of yourself destroyed (as opposed to some false overblown egotistical part)--are, in a submissive, as destructive as wanting to have a body part cut off.
--------

I respond: You speak of
a guy who wants to have his sense of himself as a worthwhile human being ground into the dirt, and object to a dom/me who, for any number of reasons, is callous enough to indulge that.

I see the overall point, that there are those seeking what amounts to real abuse. We want to say that some abused wives are de facto 'brainwashed' as to what they're receiving. They have been induced and coerced into accepting a view of themselves as crap.

OTOH, I'm not quite ready to get on the 'mental health' bandwagon entirely, and pathologize 'destructive' tendencies where they are NOT occasioned by exploitive brainwashing. This is to make the 'normal human' mind entirely too redolent of goodness.

A number of us have a degree of or proclivity to self loathing, and choose various ways to live with it, including its indulgence--possibly this 'increases' it, as you say, but I think its level is fairly constant. Like hunger it comes, and abates when appeased; but this fluctuation does not (necessarily) reflect an increase in the basal level of hunger.

In a larger context, I think of 'self effacement' and am not willing to pathologize all its manifestations. That goal is found in some religious mystics, who cite

"All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we shrivel up like a leaf and like the wind, our sins sweep us away. "

So while I agree with your last statement ("To me...") on a descriptive level, I'm not ready to invariably take a 'moral' or 'mental health' stance as you seem to suggest (as I read you).

 

[catalina_francisco]

So many equate submissiveness (in the D/s sense which we discuss here...not submissive or passive natures which I tend to think are different entities), especially masochism, with thoughts of self loathing and self destruct patterns and then start comparing it with the mindset of an abused person. IMHO, that shows a lack of understanding or appreciation for the tastes of one over the other they see as the powerful position. Interestingly, I have worked highly successfully specialising in domestic violence, and to a lesser degree abuse in other areas....and I have also been in relationships where my partner attempted to abuse me. Interestingly, given this theory masochism and/or submission may be self destructive or low self esteem issues, I had no problem doing what had to be done to prevent abuse to me, nor did I feel guilty or sad about doing so, but in reality I am a masochist who loves her blood being shed and abuse being showered on her in a variety of ways by those she consents to allowing that priviledge, namely my Master and who he chooses as my owner. The difference is in the mindsets of the abuser and sadist, and consent (for me blanket consent to my Master) given to the act, not being the helpless, unwilling participant (victim) in a criminal act.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

N: //a Jungian faceted kind of thing, a parallel reality.//

Sounds like a good job description for your card.
"A Jungian faceted, parallel domme."

I myself would not use the term 'parallel,' for the symbolic penetrates the 'real' or 'everyday' quite thoroughly. And all our sexual enactments are freighted with fantasy.

Consider:
Our fantasies are not bound by morality, but involve cruelty, aggression, sexual excess, etc.

Our sexual activities are permeated with--and driven by-- these fantasies.

Hence the presentation of our sexual activities as invariably civilized, gentlemanly, 'considerate' is simply an implausible moral cloak.

Thought and act may be linked, like you say, but they're not synonymous, B does not always follow A. I don't think everyone's sexual landcape is full of Sadeian mayhem. Consent is what separates SM from a lot of things that are not OK, yes, but I also think communication is what separates SM from them too.

Quint's post on the abuse thread really made that point to me, in a nice concise way. Abusers don't ask nor care how it was for their victims. They certainly don't enter a dialogue with their victims after the fact over what happened. They don't plan or have a trajectory of where they want to go mapped out, usually... whether we "nice" sadists choose to let our masochistic cohorts know what's in store for them or not, we usually do have an investment in that and an idea of what we want to happen.

I don't have to give rein to every bloody pulp fictional scene I may have masturbated to. Bring able to say "I'll cut your fuckng balls off and stuff 'em down your throat" to a lover in the heat of "interrogation" may feed that particular impulse even only as a verbal/conceptual gesture alone.

If he signed on for that kind of game, it works and works quite well. Whether he has given a blanket consent and I'm pushing him out to the edge, or whether he thought the whole idea up, it still works for me.

If he never did sign on, I run the risk of him taking this altogether too literally and the consequences thereof. I don't, as a socialized person who wants to be treated decently, generally like that picture.

Seriouness and literalness are two different continuums, for me. They are not the same thing.

In the Meiwes sense, maybe I have a gynophragic fetish and it makes me nibble my girlfriend's toes hard, or makes me want to cut up and eat meat in front of her and tell her how I'm eating her corpse while she's tied...it doesn't mean I have to cook her up for Sunday Barbeque.

So yeah, it's fine and good to say our internal landscape influences our sexual behavior, but I really get squirmy over anything that allows people to conflate creepy and asocial fantasy with symbols, pictures, enactments, and the forms of fucking that result. The gas isn't the same as the car.

 

[Pure]

N, I'm not sure where you think I said one should act on every fantasy**, but yes, some are clearly antisocial and not to be acted on, and Sade himself was able to make the distinction; he never inflicted serious bodily harm or death, despite their omnipresence in his novels.

The central point about attempts to make the 'bedroom' too civilized, mannerly, and compassionate seems to have gotten lost.

As to

conflate creepy and asocial fantasy with symbols,

Yes, I do that, happily. Because a fantasy is a- or anti-social does not mean it does partake of archetype and symbol. (Symbols aren't alway 'nice' or of 'nice' things.) Some Sadeian fantasies definitely partake of Kali. Not to say the Dark/Evil/Bad Mother.
---

**Everything we do, esp. in sex, is influenced by and often permeated with fantasy-- this claim, the one I in fact made, is entirely different.

 

[Netzach]

Ok, ok, screw me mea culpa...
that should read "creepy and asocial ACTS etc.."
not "fantasies"

 

[Pure]

Even the modified sentence is garbled, for how could one NOT sometimes conflate "creepy and asocial acts with ... enactments and forms of fucking."

In any case, as to your drift, the enactment of every fantasy has never been 'on the table' or advocated.

 

[Netzach]

The central point about attempts to make the 'bedroom' too civilized, mannerly, and compassionate seems to have gotten lost.

In whose estimation?

I mean, if it's working for the people doing the fucking ...right?(and I don't mean just fucking, obviously)

I don't invite my politics into my bed every time...I'm not thinking about whether I'm correct or incorrect, I'm thinking about pleasure and it falls on the map where it will. I'd probably be the angriest ever political lesbian if I let my social agenda run my sex life, with a lot less SM and mayhem governing my desires.

I'm not so paranoid that I have to break free of fascism every time I get laid. Thank God.