New paradigm

[Netzach]

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.

Because an act of violence is not the same as a depiction or enactment of it. That's the thing anti-pornography crusaders trip up on every time.

My cannibalism example being case in point. Some people would argue that fantasizing about eating my theoretical gf and working that into our sex play is equivalent to or going to lead to me to cooking her and eating her at a later point.

If it's civility and manners that keeps me from doing that, if it's civility and manners that keep me from suckerpunching the next client who comes through the door when he's looking to be tied up....then so be it.

 

[Pure]

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



N; In whose estimation?

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

Well, of course some pretenses 'work'; there are mannerly compassionate bedroom folks who are quite happy, so they say.

Now the guy does go out looking for blowjobs from prostitutes, and may buy a good flogging from you, and the woman reads 120 Days of Sodom.

He downloads goat fuck pictures from the 'net and she's into IM chat scenes where two guys take her up the ass, quite brutally.

But yes that's 'working' in a sense.

Can we just, British style, give three cheers for good manners and civility, and move on? Must our 'good manners' be the topic of every thread?

 

[Pure]

N: Some people would argue that fantasizing about eating my theoretical gf and working that into our sex play is equivalent to or going to lead to me to cooking her and eating her at a later point.

no doubt. but since none of them is posting to this thread, why does that position merit so much attention, and now, three refutations/rejoinders from you?

 

[Netzach]

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



N; In whose estimation?

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

Well, of course some pretenses 'work'; there are mannerly compassionate bedroom folks who are quite happy, so they say.

Now the guy does go out looking for blowjobs from prostitutes, and may buy a good flogging from you, and the woman reads 120 Days of Sodom.

He downloads goat fuck pictures from the 'net and she's into IM chat scenes where two guys take her up the ass, quite brutally.

But yes that's 'working' in a sense.

Can we just, British style, give three cheers for good manners and civility, and move on? Must our 'good manners' be the topic of every thread?

I think you're really using the broad brush here. I understand your point, I think, and I agree, the Dark Side as it were does not get equal air time.

But it doesn't get equal air time in my own sex life, and I'm hardly the type of person in the couple you are talking about.

I think if I felt compelled to always be pushing a partner, acting in my self interest, indulging my sadism, making the girls cry and laughing cavalierly instead ot dabbing away the tears, I'd be as limited as if I were never to indulge those desires. It's like being beholden to the tyrrany of indie rock fans and press and their darlings of the moment just because you know the majority of major labels bite.

 

[Netzach]

N: Some people would argue that fantasizing about eating my theoretical gf and working that into our sex play is equivalent to or going to lead to me to cooking her and eating her at a later point.

no doubt. but since none of them is posting to this thread, why does that position merit so much attention, and now, three refutations/rejoinders from you?

Because I feel like it's almost the polar opposite argument going on, that's why.

"Because you'd never let yourself get off to a narrow definition of an asocial idea or wank to the daydream of real misery, or because you are concerned with your partner in an altruistic way you're not actually doing anything that's outside the mainstream or actually SM" is what I'm reading into the argument.

It's the other side of the same coin.

 

[Pure]

N: I think if I felt compelled to always be pushing a partner, acting in my self interest, indulging my sadism, making the girls cry and laughing cavalierly instead ot dabbing away the tears, I'd be as limited as if I were never to indulge those desires. It's like being beholden to the tyrrany of indie rock fans and press and their darlings of the moment just because you know the majority of major labels bite.

It's the moralist demanding minute by minute conformity--never forget the rules; never forget to act properly.

An amoral person ignores or acts without regard for the rules. A sexual amoralist does that within the sexual interactions ("the bedroom"). Neither is concerned to *break* every moral rule, at every possible opportunity; merely as it suits.

Similarly to act 'for yourself' is not to recognize any necessity to take account of others' needs and wants, in themselves.

In neither case is there 'tyrrany' as you propose. (Being compelled to do a particular thing or sort of thing.)

Nor is the indy analogy a good one, imo. A better analogy is of an actor/musician who's contracted to one producer/distributor, [as in the old Hollywood days, with Shirley Temple] for a significant period, versus one who is a 'free agent,' able to work for whom s/he wants.

To come back to the point, there's a difference between those who profess minute-by-minute 'mannerliness' and 'consideration' in the bedroom--e.g., the 'gentleman doms-- and the person who allows themselves sadistic acts *as it suits them.* And there are grey areas (persons) in between.

You're apparently in the latter direction, and so far as I can see--limited by the cybermedia--, one of a *very* few around this forum with this strong leaning, unapologetically so.

 

[s'lara]

<snip>To come back to the point, there's a difference between those who profess minute-by-minute 'mannerliness' and 'consideration' in the bedroom--e.g., the 'gentleman doms-- and the person who allows themselves sadistic acts *as it suits them.* And there are grey areas (persons) in between.

You're apparently in the latter direction, and so far as I can see--limited by the cybermedia--, one of a *very* few around this forum with this strong leaning, unapologetically so.

i just found my way back to this thread.

Just a question. The "allow themselves sadistic acts as it suits them" comment -- do You refer to those who don't find it necessary to conform to "Gentleman/Gentlewoman Dom" persona, but still operate within a moral conscience? Or are you referring to those who do not adhere to any moral restraint and are indulgent of their sadistic needs without regard to how it appears to others? i think those are two very different animals. i also detect a note of disdain for those who aspire to the genteel image of a Dominant or those who are unwilling shed their need to move in and out of both veins of sadistic conduct -- moral and amoral behavior towards another without choosing one over the other entirely. Am i incorrect? This is what i discerned from your exchange with Netzach.

i guess what i am saying is that i read you to be a proponent of partaking in acts which may be viewed as amoral (sexual/non-sexual; libertine as it were) without concern for the recipient or those who may witness/judge said acts. Moreover, i also read you as one who sees an impurity of execution of said sadistic acts if one were governed by their conscious or instilled societal mores. Let me know if i am off base.

Well, this thread went into figure eights, but in a good way.

lara

 

[Pure]

hi lara,

i think you have some of the drift of what i said (you're not way 'off base' as per your last sentence), though you make a libertine a bit like Ted Bundy. Here is one general comment, before I proceed to your questions.

i don't 'disdain' those who are proper, mannerly, and considerate in the bedroom (though many live out other sides of themselves elsewhere, like hiring ms netzach). i simply see it as two fetichists doing an erotic 'exchange' of services, as it not uncommon whether vanilla or kinked. Iow, in most of these cases, the SM or 'power' related characteristics are nothing especially salient (not expecially present, any more than in the house next door.)

the persons may be fine and interesting people who fulfill one another, of course, and that's not to be disdained or 'put down.'
-------

Just a question. The "allow themselves sadistic acts as it suits them" comment -- do You refer to those who don't find it necessary to conform to "Gentleman/Gentlewoman Dom" persona, but still operate within a moral conscience? Or are you referring to those who do not adhere to any moral restraint and are indulgent of their sadistic needs without regard to how it appears to others?

I'm not sure about what these alternatives mean. Perhaps I'm closer to the first, if by 'moral restraint' or conscience, [you mean] that which keeps a person from maiming or murdering his/her partner. If you read about Sade's own life, you'll see in more detail what I mean.

i think those are two very different animals. i also detect a note of disdain for those who aspire to the genteel image of a Dominant or those who are unwilling shed their need to move in and out of both veins of sadistic conduct -- moral and amoral behavior towards another without choosing one over the other entirely. Am i incorrect? This is what i discerned from your exchange with Netzach.

I don't object to those who 'move in and out of both veins fo sadistic conduct", but I do have some problems with the 'genteel Dominant', as stated above; it's to do with 'truth in labeling', though, not saying s/he's a bad person.

i guess what i am saying is that i read you to be a proponent of partaking in acts which may be viewed as amoral (sexual/non-sexual; libertine as it were) without concern for the recipient or those who may witness/judge said acts.

the recpient should emerge from the bedroom at the end, and shouldn't have a valid case for the cops and DA.

Moreover, i also read you as one who sees an impurity of execution of said sadistic acts if one were governed by their conscious or instilled societal mores. Let me know if i am off base.

I wouldn't take of the 'purity' of the act, merely whether it's characterized by 'exchange' and equality, or whether it has a sadistic character. [those are the extreme poles; obviously there are 'mixed' positions in between.]

I'm realistic. I can't advocate the pure id, of unrestrained rape and murder and free for all fucking. One's partners should not be in a position or of a disposition to lay charges.

That much is conceded to the 'mores'. The partner should be walking about the next day, without lasting injury.

There is however, much room for sadistic acts, as for instance in the current Quint thread on pissing in a cunt. [Quint being a rare example of someone on the receiving end of actual sadism, imo.]

I hope that clarifies, and would like to hear your thougts.

 

[s'lara]

hi lara,
i think you have some of the drift of what i said (you're not way 'off base' as per your last sentence), though you make a libertine a bit like Ted Bundy. Here is one general comment, before I proceed to your questions.

i don't 'disdain' those who are proper, mannerly, and considerate in the bedroom (though many live out other sides of themselves elsewhere, like hiring ms netzach). i simply see it as two fetichists doing an erotic 'exchange' of services, as it not uncommon whether vanilla or kinked. Iow, in most of these cases, the SM or 'power' related characteristics are nothing especially salient (not expecially present, any more than in the house next door.)

the persons may be fine and interesting people who fulfill one another, of course, and that's not to be disdained or 'put down.'
-------

Just a question. The "allow themselves sadistic acts as it suits them" comment -- do You refer to those who don't find it necessary to conform to "Gentleman/Gentlewoman Dom" persona, but still operate within a moral conscience? Or are you referring to those who do not adhere to any moral restraint and are indulgent of their sadistic needs without regard to how it appears to others?

I'm not sure about what these alternatives mean. Perhaps I'm closer to the first, if by 'moral restraint' or conscience, that which keeps a person from maiming or murdering his/her partner. If you read about Sade's own life, you'll see in more detail what I mean.

i think those are two very different animals. i also detect a note of disdain for those who aspire to the genteel image of a Dominant or those who are unwilling shed their need to move in and out of both veins of sadistic conduct -- moral and amoral behavior towards another without choosing one over the other entirely. Am i incorrect? This is what i discerned from your exchange with Netzach.

I don't object to those who 'move in and out of both veins fo sadistic conduct", but I do have some problems with the 'genteel Dominant', as stated above; it's to do with 'truth in labeling', though, not saying s/he's a bad person.

i guess what i am saying is that i read you to be a proponent of partaking in acts which may be viewed as amoral (sexual/non-sexual; libertine as it were) without concern for the recipient or those who may witness/judge said acts.

the recepient should emerge from the bedroom at the end, and shouldn't have a valid case for the cops and DA.

Moreover, i also read you as one who sees an impurity of execution of said sadistic acts if one were governed by their conscious or instilled societal mores. Let me know if i am off base.

I wouldn't take of the 'purity' of the act, merely whether it's characterized by 'exchange' and equality, or whether it has a sadistic character.

I'm realistic. I can't advocate the pure id, of unrestrained rape and murder and free for all fucking. One's partners should not be in a position or of a disposition to lay charges.

That much is conceded to the 'mores'. The partner should be walking about the next day, without lasting injury.

There is however, much room for sadistic acts, as for instance in the current Quint thread on pissing in a cunt.

I hope that clarifies, and would like to hear your thougts.

Hi P,

When i referred to my perception of your disdain, i was talking about the level of disbelief and cynicism you seemed to display when one referred to their "code of conduct" in their BDSM activities. i wasn't referring to average Joe who incorporates Friday night spankfest into his weekly sex routine. i was talking about those who are fully realized in their kink and have adopted to make BDSM a part of their typical relationships. So lets focus our talk there.

i am familiar with Sade and how his 'real life' experiences were no where near what was reflected in his works, so i believe i understand that despite the vivid imagination, he likely abstained from enacting much of his fantasies due to his own moral restraints.

But, please tell me more about your 'truth in labeling' issue. What is it that bothers you about those who adopt or exhibit the "genteel dominant" characteristic? Maybe a better question is whether you believe this persona is an affectation that is somehow in direct contravention to the "rude and crude" nature of Dominance and sadism? In a sense, a hypocrisy? i don't want to put words in your mouth, so tell me if that's not what you meant.

As for the rest, we're in agreement. i don't advocate the extremist, amoral sadist. i also don't support acting on an impulse without regard for consequences. i do understand and sympathize if someone engages in sadistic activities and walks away feeling a little conflicted about the depth of their sadism. i do understand if someone wants to operate inside their sadism without relenquishing certain niceties or long held mores. i'd much rather endure acts of sadism from someone who works to house the beast and the good guy/girl with a little balance.

Thanks for indulging my questions.

lara

 

[Netzach]

hi lara,

i think you have some of the drift of what i said (you're not way 'off base' as per your last sentence), though you make a libertine a bit like Ted Bundy. Here is one general comment, before I proceed to your questions.

i don't 'disdain' those who are proper, mannerly, and considerate in the bedroom (though many live out other sides of themselves elsewhere, like hiring ms netzach). i simply see it as two fetichists doing an erotic 'exchange' of services, as it not uncommon whether vanilla or kinked. Iow, in most of these cases, the SM or 'power' related characteristics are nothing especially salient (not expecially present, any more than in the house next door.)

the persons may be fine and interesting people who fulfill one another, of course, and that's not to be disdained or 'put down.'
-------

I think your bedroom preferences become salient when you can lose a job or a house over them. My mutualistic tendencies with M would not get me far if his prospective employers found lovely photos of him in corsets and lace all over the web, would they?

 

[Pure]

nope, nor would photos of him fucking a sheep.

 

[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, just came across this....not with beard, and not sure cute is the word I would use to best describe, but Basegunner makes her look good on a leash. ...and I still reckon she looks good in or out of anything!!

Catalina

 

[bridgeburner]

i don't 'disdain' those who are proper, mannerly, and considerate in the bedroom (though many live out other sides of themselves elsewhere, like hiring ms netzach). i simply see it as two fetichists doing an erotic 'exchange' of services, as it not uncommon whether vanilla or kinked. Iow, in most of these cases, the SM or 'power' related characteristics are nothing especially salient (not expecially present, any more than in the house next door.)

That's disdainful sounding even if you don't mean it to be. It's condescending. "Yes, yes, you whipped her bloody and made her drink a bowl of spit in front of your bridge party guests, but because you later snuggled with her on Sunday morning while reading the funny papers you're not really into power exchange."

I've read this argument from you many a time and I'm still unable to get my head around it in any other way than to conclude that you're saying anyone who allows himself to be restrained in his actions by anything other than the law isn't really involved in power exchange/BDSM but just playacting some genteel tit for tat scenario.

What has the law got to do with it? You can be a reprehensible son of a bitch and never even come close to breaking the law. It's not illegal to make fun of the handicapped or to seduce someone into loving you and then betray them for your own amusement.

Your argument seems to say that "true" sadism requires a total absence of any affection or care for one's victim. The minute the sadist allows the feelings of his victim to mitigate his actions he's just a milquetoast pretender.

Perhaps that's not what you're saying, but as I mentioned I've been mulling this over for quite some time and it's the only conclusion I've been able to reach.


-B

 

[Pure]

hi bb,

i'm complimented by your mulling, but you seem to have arrived at contradictory conclusions:

here are two summaries of what you take to be my position:

you're saying anyone who allows himself to be restrained in his actions by anything other than the law isn't really involved in power exchange/BDSM but just playacting some genteel tit for tat scenario.

===

Your argument seems to say that "true" sadism requires a total absence of any affection or care for one's victim. The minute the sadist allows the feelings of his victim to mitigate his actions he's just a milquetoast pretender.

=======

The first suggests a degree of restraint, while the second suggests that mitigation (at least out of feeling) is a sign of milquetoastism and pretention (your terms). Is that not contradictory. Is there to be restraint/mitigation (lessening or controlling of the impulse to inflict pain or harm). Yes or no.
Yes, as in the first summary, is more what I had in mind, since 'no' [restraint] is an indication of criminal behavior (psychopathic or criminal sadist, if you will).

----

I find the first summary to be closer to what I think, though I don't use the term 'playacting' for the 'exchange' alternative (the one you call 'tit for tat', which isn't quite the same).

But the first summary alludes to the 'real bdsm' debate; which I don't see much point to. It means what those who self label, and the media and the dictionaries say it means.

The term 'power exchange' has several possible definitions, and some 'bdsm' folks reject it or find it minimally useful. I'm not sure what definitin you have in mind. I avoid the term, though not the term, exchange of services; you scratch my back, I scratch yours.

But I am interested in the question, When is person A exercizing power over B (or B's acts). That power is defined, 'in my book' in terms of command and control. It follows that *exchanges* of services are generally not especially marked by 'power over.'

To see this, picture that we enact a scene in which I'm the sheriff and I arrest you, the criminal, and 'give you the third degree'. Well, if that's set up and agreed upon, I don't see either with power over the other; or, what's the same thing, we're both equally in control.

More within SM tradition: If you--like the Marquis de Sade-- enjoy being beaten (whipped) and engage me--as a pro-- to do it to you; tie you up and whip you for half an hour, for instance. The lines of 'control' become very unclear at best. Even more are they unclear if--as in the modern bdsm community-- you specify that when you say 'red', I'll untie you immediately. Either way, it may well be that the one being whipped is in control.

with no disdain, amie,

J.

 

[Netzach]

Hello we are sophisticated postmoderns here, no?

When did the idea of an enactment become so incrediby boring anyway? Fuck your "authenticity" folks, no offense. The day the Bush Taliban lets a man legally own his wife and forbid her from working is the day I will see "a lifestyle M/s couple" as having more veracity and more "realness" than I do.

I'm not really an asshole I just play one. And I'm proud of that fact.

~N.

 

[Pure]

if you had read an account of Sade's RL scenes, I don't think 'boring' is exactly the word that comes to mind.

a question i come back to is 'who's running the scene?'

here, the Marquis, the beaten one. (who also beats, of course).

 

[Netzach]

Collaboration, man. I don't get jack shit if the bottom's not on the same page, whether their contribution is a flogging at my command or yelling "fuck me harder daddy fuck me harder" at the moment of bliss. If you look at the sheer watts put out by a good SM scene, who's in charge isn't really that interesting anymore, in my experience.

PS. I've read as much De Sade as I could stand and I find him kind of boring in his repetition the shock value wears down. In addition the relevance of this revolution era renegade to my present sexual life is as questionable as the Michelangelo legacy is to me, as a painter, sorry.

 

[Netzach]

Who *is* the SM equivalent of Duchamp anyway?

Hmmm....

 

[bridgeburner]

Pure,

You seem to have arrived at contradictory conclusions

Not at all. They are two aspects of the same conclusion although I can see how the confusion might have happened because of the way the ideas were separated.

The first suggests a degree of restraint, while the second suggests that mitigation (at least out of feeling) is a sign of milquetoastism and pretention (your terms).

You've set up a false contradiction here. One can be restrained by the law while simultaneously not entertaining restraint due to feeling. A rephrasing of the inital statement would read:

"Anyone who allows himself to be restrained in his actions by anything other than the law (e.g. feeling) isn't involved in real power exchange."

Which, as I said, may not be what you mean at all, but it's how I understood your argument.

On the subject of sociopathology I think we need to work with a text book definition. Sociopathology -- actually Antisocial Personality Disorder coupled with adolescent Conduct Disorder --- does not turn on the question of law. One can be a sociopath without breaking the law as that is only one component of a whole list of things variously combined that might indicate a personality disorder.

I'm focused on this because for me personally, I'd be far more likely to engage with a person who had little regard for the law but a reliable personal compassion/empathy. I'm not all that impressed with someone who only restrains himself from injuring me because it might land him in jail. It's not illegal to make fun of the retarded kid, if you see what I'm getting at.

But I am interested in the question, When is person A exercizing power over B (or B's acts). That power is defined, 'in my book' in terms of command and control. It follows that *exchanges* of services are generally not especially marked by 'power over.'

I would say that person A exerts power over person B whenever A's desires are fulfilled instead of B's and vice versa. That may change from moment to moment but in any given moment one or the other partner may be exerting more control. If you look at the whole of a relationship it may be that the partners are equal on the tally sheet but we don't live our lives all at one time or at some distant future looking back on the whole. We live in the moment and that's where the exertion of power and will are measured.

In the case of the cop, he can heckle and arrest me thereby exerting his power over me, but I can also file suit against him or lobby my councilperson to overhaul the police force. The cop has power because the people give it to him. It can be revoked. That doesn't make his power any less real.


Sorry, I see that I missed this part:

But the first summary alludes to the 'real bdsm' debate; which I don't see much point to.

For myself I don't either --- not least of which because I don't practice it anyway. I'm not interested in the "rules of the scene" in the same way that I've never been particularly interested in following the rules of any social circle. All the same, it keeps coming back to this issue because you appear to question the legitimacy of those who have anything other than absolute self-interest motivating their actions.

-B

 

[Pure]

bb said,

//All the same, it keeps coming back to this issue because you appear to question the legitimacy of those who have anything other than absolute self-interest motivating their actions.//

No, it's simply a matter of truth in labeling. If you have a lot of sheep in your back fields, and few trees, you're a sheep farmer, not a tree farmer. Both are legitmate occupations.

If you call yourself a lecher, debauche, libertine, or power-wielding sadist, then one expects self interest to be pretty damn primary (which doesn' exclude pleasing people for one's own ends.) And of course no one goes around leching 24 hrs a day.

(It would be better to talk about the action, here, and below; thus: if you engaging in lechery, libertinism, and sadistically wielding power, one expects you in that period and process to be putting your own interests strongly primary.)

If you're a self sacrificing romantic, the one expects great love and concern centered in the interests of the other. And actions furthering those interests.

If you play games with those similarly kinked, you're a kinky sensualist, one might say, for no one is exercizing power over the other, by your definitions (which resemble mine, btw).

None of these is any more legitimate than the other.

 

[Kajira Callista]

bump.