SMACK--a concept, a gathering. Welcome.
- Thread starter Pure
- Start date
bridgeburner
threadkiller
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 2,712
I've always wondered about the whole orgasm denial thing. I suppose it might make one crazy eventually, but all I can think is that long before madness I'd just get bored. Of course I'd probably sell my soul to the man skilled enough to get me that close repeatedly.
I'm also curious as to how you can consistently, accurately predict how close your partner is to orgasm. I mean, even playing alone sometimes it sneaks up on me and I'm like "Damn, I didn't mean to do that yet."
The crux of the biscuit here seems to be his supernatural ability to read her and arouse her against her will then know exactly when to stop touching her so she can't reach satisfaction. As Quint said, because she's not into that sort of thing, it's cruel. And also like Quint, that's the part that I like ---- that the woman is not having a good time.
-B
I'm also curious as to how you can consistently, accurately predict how close your partner is to orgasm. I mean, even playing alone sometimes it sneaks up on me and I'm like "Damn, I didn't mean to do that yet."
The crux of the biscuit here seems to be his supernatural ability to read her and arouse her against her will then know exactly when to stop touching her so she can't reach satisfaction. As Quint said, because she's not into that sort of thing, it's cruel. And also like Quint, that's the part that I like ---- that the woman is not having a good time.
-B
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi bb,
I think, esp. a woman, needs to have a signal from the man about to come; i.e., he must facilitate his 'torture.'
All in all, I don't buy aborting a 'gasm as all that cruel. not even as much as a slap on the face. I think it would take a pattern. We're not made of glass. The post arousal 'pain' of the man or woman afaik, is not deadly. Indeed, it's kinda erotic. Ache.
My opinion. The cruel use of orgasm involves making it happen under degrading conditions. The rape victim made to come is FAR more 'murdered' in reality, than is the elevator girl, by the sadist. She was teasingly tormented and certainly semi-lost control; but I feel that's for the readers titillation; not a bad thing, of course, especially when done so literarily and skillfully as here. I'm not sure this is clear.
Let's say, that it's a basically romantic set up. The dashing hero is going to sweep away the heroine. The reader WANTS it, and gets off on it. The dashing of her arousal is a melodrama. In modern romance, the guy suddenly violates her ass, for example, or tries to. That's part of the play. The idea that the 'denial' of the 'gasm shakes the girl to the core is simply part of the 'conceit', the melodrama, like "Oh my my he went for my ass, and immediately I turned cold, the boiling lust had nowhere to go and burned up my brain." Nonetheless it's brought off in an effective and writerly way.
I think, esp. a woman, needs to have a signal from the man about to come; i.e., he must facilitate his 'torture.'
All in all, I don't buy aborting a 'gasm as all that cruel. not even as much as a slap on the face. I think it would take a pattern. We're not made of glass. The post arousal 'pain' of the man or woman afaik, is not deadly. Indeed, it's kinda erotic. Ache.
My opinion. The cruel use of orgasm involves making it happen under degrading conditions. The rape victim made to come is FAR more 'murdered' in reality, than is the elevator girl, by the sadist. She was teasingly tormented and certainly semi-lost control; but I feel that's for the readers titillation; not a bad thing, of course, especially when done so literarily and skillfully as here. I'm not sure this is clear.
Let's say, that it's a basically romantic set up. The dashing hero is going to sweep away the heroine. The reader WANTS it, and gets off on it. The dashing of her arousal is a melodrama. In modern romance, the guy suddenly violates her ass, for example, or tries to. That's part of the play. The idea that the 'denial' of the 'gasm shakes the girl to the core is simply part of the 'conceit', the melodrama, like "Oh my my he went for my ass, and immediately I turned cold, the boiling lust had nowhere to go and burned up my brain." Nonetheless it's brought off in an effective and writerly way.
thickspear
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2003
- Posts
- 250
mmm....well....
ideas crosspaths here but the pilgrims have different origins and different destinations...
sometimes it's good to just observe..no need to form opinions...just to understand what works for someone at a moment isn't for anyone else except by choice...
the things i crave one moment wouldn't necessarily work in another..but i like to see what arouses passion...that's the thing...whether it's subspace, domspace or another erotic acheivement of the mind and body...but i couldn't have said that ten years ago..
with some posts i see where i've been...with others i see where i'm going
i hope this isn't too philosophical or intellectual...it's just what i thought when i read the posts on this thread
if a strong woman forced herself on me i would just love it...
ts
ideas crosspaths here but the pilgrims have different origins and different destinations...
sometimes it's good to just observe..no need to form opinions...just to understand what works for someone at a moment isn't for anyone else except by choice...
the things i crave one moment wouldn't necessarily work in another..but i like to see what arouses passion...that's the thing...whether it's subspace, domspace or another erotic acheivement of the mind and body...but i couldn't have said that ten years ago..
with some posts i see where i've been...with others i see where i'm going
i hope this isn't too philosophical or intellectual...it's just what i thought when i read the posts on this thread
if a strong woman forced herself on me i would just love it...
ts
cellis
Saucy
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2001
- Posts
- 4,186
Pure said:
Ha... it is just one of the games we play... not extremely sadistic in His eyes... but oh so sadistic to me... however... there are pay offs in the end... for both of us....
Now Pure, don't try to make something into this it is not... It is how we do things... That is all
s'lara
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2002
- Posts
- 2,248
i'm enjoying the thread Pure.
Orgasm denial does have an element of sadism to it. i know this does not seem not as sadistic in comparison to say, a bastinado, but it certainly is if your entire focus is on orgasmic relief and you aren't allowed to do so. Cruel in the conventional sense of the word? i don't believe it falls under the umbrella of cruelty, especially considering the number of things one can do to another which does not include pleasurable teasing.
One thing should be clear though, orgasm denial, in the sense of stimulating someone until they are close and then ceasing such stimulation isn't based on psychic radar. More often than not, the Dominant will demand that the sub verbalize their approach to orgasm and based on that information, they can manipulate the cessation of these feelings at their whim. There is no omniscient approach to orgasm denial so i think it is safe to say that it isn't as mystical as it may seem.
Sadism/cruelty is a bit subjective Pure. i might find being made to come after a Dominant has broken me (emotionally) sadistic and cruel while someone else may find such a scenario par for the course in their relationship. i don't necessarily believe orgasm under degrading circumstances makes such play officially sadistic or cruel -- just another avenue of approach in torturing the submissive.
Interesting topic though.
lara
Orgasm denial does have an element of sadism to it. i know this does not seem not as sadistic in comparison to say, a bastinado, but it certainly is if your entire focus is on orgasmic relief and you aren't allowed to do so. Cruel in the conventional sense of the word? i don't believe it falls under the umbrella of cruelty, especially considering the number of things one can do to another which does not include pleasurable teasing.
One thing should be clear though, orgasm denial, in the sense of stimulating someone until they are close and then ceasing such stimulation isn't based on psychic radar. More often than not, the Dominant will demand that the sub verbalize their approach to orgasm and based on that information, they can manipulate the cessation of these feelings at their whim. There is no omniscient approach to orgasm denial so i think it is safe to say that it isn't as mystical as it may seem.
Sadism/cruelty is a bit subjective Pure. i might find being made to come after a Dominant has broken me (emotionally) sadistic and cruel while someone else may find such a scenario par for the course in their relationship. i don't necessarily believe orgasm under degrading circumstances makes such play officially sadistic or cruel -- just another avenue of approach in torturing the submissive.
Interesting topic though.
lara
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
N said,
Context, dear boy.
This isn't a nice little session between lovers, it's a sex worker being forced to admit a desire, nay, a sexual FRENZY for a client who treats her contemptuously.
I'd prefer a bitchslap.
That's not my take on the context, at all. While the 'turn on' of a sex worker, in real life, might be an occasion for crueltywith --or without-- the derailing of orgasm, this pro has been a hot tamale with clients from the get go:
Here's the climaxes of the first two encounters, which happen in a short time, from initial meeting as strangers--some very hot, evocative writing:
First encounter (2)
[a pair of wealthy executives, slim and hefty]
P: The thin man stayed at my breasts but the larger one took hold of my ass with one hand and my cunt with the other. He squealed when he felt my wetness and brought his creamed hand up to show his friend, rubbing my cream on my breasts for the other to lick. Hefty returned to my cunt and pinched my vulva lips hard alternating with sticking his fingers in and out like thin little cocks. He moistened his back hand and began to poke around in my asshole. By this time I was straining to keep straight and not move my head. I was also close to climaxing but had to control myself. If I had an orgasm without consent I could be fined or even fired if a special client complained.[...]
At the right time they obviously signaled each other and we all climaxed together. They barely grunted but I finally lost all composure and screamed and cried a thorough expression of a fierce multi-orgasm. They were kind enough to keep me going with their continued play until I was lightly sighing and my clit was only slowing pulsating. They seemed to know when I was thoroughly finished.
===
third encounter
[a tall lean Eurasian, light brown hair, who has beaten her ass hard]
He leaned down to suck a nipple, hard, as if he were sucking to drink. At the same time he stroked my cunt with the tips of his fingers, feather-light strokes, back and forth. I mewed and hummed my pleasure for what seemed like several long minutes. Though I was aroused it felt as if he were merely suckling at my breast rather than acting as a lover. As he poked at my wet cunt, in and out a few times, he began to massage my clitoris with his thumb, and I arrived at the next plateau nearing orgasm.
But—he suddenly began to bite my nipple so hard I worried he would tear the skin. The combination of pain and pleasure accelerated my cunt’s pulse and I knew I was near to a finale. He let me soar and come. I yelled louder and more harshly than with my first clients as he continued to suck and bite my nipples and pinch and pull at my clit. I felt my ass quiver in the continued commingling of pain and pleasure, and my legs nearly buckled under me. He kept caressing my cunt then suckling tenderly so that my ecstasy was prolonged and allowed to diminish slowly. Piano, pianissimo. . .
[she then whips him, including cock, and buggers him with the whip handle and he loves it]
----
In short, she is a porn fantasy prostitute who's sexually responsive quickly, easily and to orgasm by all the clients we've heard about. And no shame or regret. This is the 'porn premise'. *The woman wants it from just about anyone she runs into.* Though admittedly the clients are clean, polite, and mostly handsome and monied.
So it seems Mr. Sadist is not unusual in getting her hot; perhaps hotter than before, but others were quite skilled; her derails her orgasm just before its peak. It's not a simple deduction, within the premises of the story, as to her reaction.
Hence, in my view, the cruelty is hard to ascertain. It is a bit like speculating what it would be like for Sherlock Holmes to be unable to figure out a case, or Superman to be unable to lift a building, or Fanny Hill having difficulty with sex during her menopause.
My intuition is that had her responses previously been muted, a turn on from the sadist might have the effect you say. Again, the somewhat analogous Belle de Jour scene comes to mind where CD is extraordinarily satisified by something perverse and brutal.
Again, with a different agenda and intended audience, the cruelty or degradation would be accomplished with one of the dirty burakumin. (and rr type scene)
And who do you think is the intended audience? Is this material for male or for female fantasy. My view: While the hot hooker is a male fantasy (if she's hot for oneself in particular), the particular variety we see here is skillfully directed to female fantasy and audience, imo.
J.
Context, dear boy.
This isn't a nice little session between lovers, it's a sex worker being forced to admit a desire, nay, a sexual FRENZY for a client who treats her contemptuously.
I'd prefer a bitchslap.
That's not my take on the context, at all. While the 'turn on' of a sex worker, in real life, might be an occasion for crueltywith --or without-- the derailing of orgasm, this pro has been a hot tamale with clients from the get go:
Here's the climaxes of the first two encounters, which happen in a short time, from initial meeting as strangers--some very hot, evocative writing:
First encounter (2)
[a pair of wealthy executives, slim and hefty]
P: The thin man stayed at my breasts but the larger one took hold of my ass with one hand and my cunt with the other. He squealed when he felt my wetness and brought his creamed hand up to show his friend, rubbing my cream on my breasts for the other to lick. Hefty returned to my cunt and pinched my vulva lips hard alternating with sticking his fingers in and out like thin little cocks. He moistened his back hand and began to poke around in my asshole. By this time I was straining to keep straight and not move my head. I was also close to climaxing but had to control myself. If I had an orgasm without consent I could be fined or even fired if a special client complained.[...]
At the right time they obviously signaled each other and we all climaxed together. They barely grunted but I finally lost all composure and screamed and cried a thorough expression of a fierce multi-orgasm. They were kind enough to keep me going with their continued play until I was lightly sighing and my clit was only slowing pulsating. They seemed to know when I was thoroughly finished.
===
third encounter
[a tall lean Eurasian, light brown hair, who has beaten her ass hard]
He leaned down to suck a nipple, hard, as if he were sucking to drink. At the same time he stroked my cunt with the tips of his fingers, feather-light strokes, back and forth. I mewed and hummed my pleasure for what seemed like several long minutes. Though I was aroused it felt as if he were merely suckling at my breast rather than acting as a lover. As he poked at my wet cunt, in and out a few times, he began to massage my clitoris with his thumb, and I arrived at the next plateau nearing orgasm.
But—he suddenly began to bite my nipple so hard I worried he would tear the skin. The combination of pain and pleasure accelerated my cunt’s pulse and I knew I was near to a finale. He let me soar and come. I yelled louder and more harshly than with my first clients as he continued to suck and bite my nipples and pinch and pull at my clit. I felt my ass quiver in the continued commingling of pain and pleasure, and my legs nearly buckled under me. He kept caressing my cunt then suckling tenderly so that my ecstasy was prolonged and allowed to diminish slowly. Piano, pianissimo. . .
[she then whips him, including cock, and buggers him with the whip handle and he loves it]
----
In short, she is a porn fantasy prostitute who's sexually responsive quickly, easily and to orgasm by all the clients we've heard about. And no shame or regret. This is the 'porn premise'. *The woman wants it from just about anyone she runs into.* Though admittedly the clients are clean, polite, and mostly handsome and monied.
So it seems Mr. Sadist is not unusual in getting her hot; perhaps hotter than before, but others were quite skilled; her derails her orgasm just before its peak. It's not a simple deduction, within the premises of the story, as to her reaction.
Hence, in my view, the cruelty is hard to ascertain. It is a bit like speculating what it would be like for Sherlock Holmes to be unable to figure out a case, or Superman to be unable to lift a building, or Fanny Hill having difficulty with sex during her menopause.
My intuition is that had her responses previously been muted, a turn on from the sadist might have the effect you say. Again, the somewhat analogous Belle de Jour scene comes to mind where CD is extraordinarily satisified by something perverse and brutal.
Again, with a different agenda and intended audience, the cruelty or degradation would be accomplished with one of the dirty burakumin. (and rr type scene)
And who do you think is the intended audience? Is this material for male or for female fantasy. My view: While the hot hooker is a male fantasy (if she's hot for oneself in particular), the particular variety we see here is skillfully directed to female fantasy and audience, imo.
J.
Last edited:
thickspear
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2003
- Posts
- 250
very interesting
bridgeburner
threadkiller
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 2,712
Howdy, Thickspear. Welcome to SMACK. How 'bout this heat wave?
-B
-B
thickspear
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2003
- Posts
- 250
hey bridgeburner...it's a glorious thing to behold...i'm getting ready to take the dog for a hike along the bluffs this morning..
but to answer your question: i'm really liking it...smile...
but to answer your question: i'm really liking it...smile...
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Dom/domme and therapeutic goals
Netzach said, in another thread (where the whole posting may be found-- it's definitely worth reading) started by Saint Sinner, How far would you go?
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=233946
I also want to build my subs. (Men and women AND trans, which really gives the lie to any idea about who's inherently what...) Men are raised to be confident, take-charge, and less sensitive about the others around them. In general, the violence is certainly a socially sanctioned transmission. So when I allow a man to be sensitive, penetrable, UNselfish, humble around me, I'm building him. You may not see that, but I do. I do in the fulfilled relaxation and gratitude I get from my subs. I see it in their happiness and their increased generosity and mellowness toward other humans around them. When I can develop a man, he changes, for the better. He'd be the first to say it.
When I have a woman, I build her too. I work tirelessly on body image, assertion, and self-acceptance, things women are taught to go without from day one. I bet you have, too. I bet you have hit the same hurdles of fear, passive aggression, PMS, and insecurity.
ALL of the people I go into this with, are submissive and fulfilled by being dominated. They'd be as happy dominating me as you'd be being dominated BY me.
Bottom line, to be a Dominant, and to develop a person, be in an ongoing relationship is to deal with the most fundamental HUMAN issues we know. We're insecure, we want to be loved, we want to be liked, we want to find fulfilling work and relationships, we want to satifsy a neverending curiousity, we need to grow and change and have our self worth periodically reaffirmed by forces outside us. Dominants too.
I appreciate the generosity and nobility of spirit here. I also understand that tastes vary, and certainly a taste for receiving a few 'strokes' (re affirmations) is out there and yes we all have it; meeting that taste is what friends are for. Indeed I grasp that friends, and those in long terms relationships need to support each other, and help 'growth'--if one must speak psychobabble.
Further I understand the 'two-fer' idea. If I can get an interior decorator for my apt, and the woman will also listen to my problems and 'affirm' me and help me grow, so much the better, ...as long as the decoration gets done.
or hey, if I become "whole", who the hell cares about decoration.
My first question is this: Where does this vision of the therapeutic domme leave a space for your ordinary joe or jill (sub/bottom) who wants a good whipping, or some degradation and does NOT want their character built? Like, peg my butt, but don't shrink my head.
My second, I'll defer.
Best,
J.
PS. I would have reproduced your whole post, below, for reference, but could not get through on PM to get permission. Feel free to post the whole thing here if it would help explain.
Netzach said, in another thread (where the whole posting may be found-- it's definitely worth reading) started by Saint Sinner, How far would you go?
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=233946
I also want to build my subs. (Men and women AND trans, which really gives the lie to any idea about who's inherently what...) Men are raised to be confident, take-charge, and less sensitive about the others around them. In general, the violence is certainly a socially sanctioned transmission. So when I allow a man to be sensitive, penetrable, UNselfish, humble around me, I'm building him. You may not see that, but I do. I do in the fulfilled relaxation and gratitude I get from my subs. I see it in their happiness and their increased generosity and mellowness toward other humans around them. When I can develop a man, he changes, for the better. He'd be the first to say it.
When I have a woman, I build her too. I work tirelessly on body image, assertion, and self-acceptance, things women are taught to go without from day one. I bet you have, too. I bet you have hit the same hurdles of fear, passive aggression, PMS, and insecurity.
ALL of the people I go into this with, are submissive and fulfilled by being dominated. They'd be as happy dominating me as you'd be being dominated BY me.
Bottom line, to be a Dominant, and to develop a person, be in an ongoing relationship is to deal with the most fundamental HUMAN issues we know. We're insecure, we want to be loved, we want to be liked, we want to find fulfilling work and relationships, we want to satifsy a neverending curiousity, we need to grow and change and have our self worth periodically reaffirmed by forces outside us. Dominants too.
I appreciate the generosity and nobility of spirit here. I also understand that tastes vary, and certainly a taste for receiving a few 'strokes' (re affirmations) is out there and yes we all have it; meeting that taste is what friends are for. Indeed I grasp that friends, and those in long terms relationships need to support each other, and help 'growth'--if one must speak psychobabble.
Further I understand the 'two-fer' idea. If I can get an interior decorator for my apt, and the woman will also listen to my problems and 'affirm' me and help me grow, so much the better, ...as long as the decoration gets done.
or hey, if I become "whole", who the hell cares about decoration. My first question is this: Where does this vision of the therapeutic domme leave a space for your ordinary joe or jill (sub/bottom) who wants a good whipping, or some degradation and does NOT want their character built? Like, peg my butt, but don't shrink my head.
My second, I'll defer.
Best,
J.
PS. I would have reproduced your whole post, below, for reference, but could not get through on PM to get permission. Feel free to post the whole thing here if it would help explain.
Last edited:
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
where does it fit in? For me, a number of places.
I call them a slave, and they don't live with me, that's the parameter of the relaitonship and it never gains that kind of intimacy. It's clearly not about them. Period.
They may be a client.
They may be a hot hook up at a fetish event.
It even fits into the play aspect of my relationships, not every scene has to be some kind of breakthrough or have a point.
And that's fine and dandy.
I call them a slave, and they don't live with me, that's the parameter of the relaitonship and it never gains that kind of intimacy. It's clearly not about them. Period.
They may be a client.
They may be a hot hook up at a fetish event.
It even fits into the play aspect of my relationships, not every scene has to be some kind of breakthrough or have a point.
And that's fine and dandy.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Netzach said,
where does it fit in? For me, a number of places.
I call them a slave, and they don't live with me, that's the parameter of the relaitonship and it never gains that kind of intimacy. It's clearly not about them. Period.
They may be a client.
They may be a hot hook up at a fetish event.
It even fits into the play aspect of my relationships, not every scene has to be some kind of breakthrough or have a point.
And that's fine and dandy.
I'm not sure what 'it' is, in the first para. I think it refers to a non therapeutic encounter.
Would it be fair then, to say that the paras about 'building my subs' refer only to a limited number (essentially just close friends) or even just your one true love? Would it be fair to say they're about *maintaining* a relationship at least as much as 'domination.' (And note I don't have a problem with people maintaining friendships and loving relationships.)
I also understand that the paras were posted in a debate/discussion with "Saint" who seemed to have a fear of ball busting dommes out to 'break' noble and brave males like him, and you may have wanted to emphasize the other extreme.
where does it fit in? For me, a number of places.
I call them a slave, and they don't live with me, that's the parameter of the relaitonship and it never gains that kind of intimacy. It's clearly not about them. Period.
They may be a client.
They may be a hot hook up at a fetish event.
It even fits into the play aspect of my relationships, not every scene has to be some kind of breakthrough or have a point.
And that's fine and dandy.
I'm not sure what 'it' is, in the first para. I think it refers to a non therapeutic encounter.
Would it be fair then, to say that the paras about 'building my subs' refer only to a limited number (essentially just close friends) or even just your one true love? Would it be fair to say they're about *maintaining* a relationship at least as much as 'domination.' (And note I don't have a problem with people maintaining friendships and loving relationships.)
I also understand that the paras were posted in a debate/discussion with "Saint" who seemed to have a fear of ball busting dommes out to 'break' noble and brave males like him, and you may have wanted to emphasize the other extreme.
Last edited:
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Yes yes and yes, pretty much.
I also find that the level of devotion and willingness to go to the ends of the earth markedly increased in an individual who feels that they recieve some lasting positive effect from being in a relationship with me. If I want that kind of devotion, I'll gladly work to create it.
Nobody, NOBODY whose relationship with me exists PURELY of me using them as I see fit, has no limitation on that use, no circumstance under which they might not say "you know....I did this, that and the other...and THIS really sucks I'm outta here."
If there's going to be ultimate tension, resignment, etc. there has to be trust and adoration. Of the real kind, the kind that changes that from "this really sucks...but it's HER (me) we're talking about here...."
Show me someone who can legally create that with a stick and no carrot.
I also find that the level of devotion and willingness to go to the ends of the earth markedly increased in an individual who feels that they recieve some lasting positive effect from being in a relationship with me. If I want that kind of devotion, I'll gladly work to create it.
Nobody, NOBODY whose relationship with me exists PURELY of me using them as I see fit, has no limitation on that use, no circumstance under which they might not say "you know....I did this, that and the other...and THIS really sucks I'm outta here."
If there's going to be ultimate tension, resignment, etc. there has to be trust and adoration. Of the real kind, the kind that changes that from "this really sucks...but it's HER (me) we're talking about here...."
Show me someone who can legally create that with a stick and no carrot.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi N,
I asked,
About 'willingness to go to the ends of the earth' or devotion, and suggest you'll 'work' for it; and you say the result of using your methods of rewards and punishments could not be created with a stick and no carrot.
I believe I partially agree in theory, tho' I'm sure you know of cold tyrranical parents who seem to dispense no carrots and yet receive undying devotion. So it's not unheard of, in the history of human psyche.
What is going on here is the old problem of the requirements of relationship and of one's sexual needs. Relationship--with exceptions as noted-- generally do require a *perception of benefit from both sides. Indeed, mutual respect is an important ingredient.
With that established, we come to the situation, say, of someone who doesn't just want to be fucked, but to be fucked in a degrading way, or with a degraded object. From the 'caring dom/mes' one might hear ---though one may not *want* to--"I deeply respect you as I degrade you"; but you must admit there's an inherent tension between the two goals.
Freud wrote about this, with some insight; the general (classic male) problem of 'love object' and 'whore' being one instance But iirc he agreed that for some individuals there isn't a solution. To put it differently, a hubby can't make his wife a whore. He'll have to have 'separate lives'-- one with wife; one with whore.
We also see the reverse in some postings to this forum; how in the world is the wife going to get herself treated as a whore. Hence the 'Belle de Jour' fantasy.
Best,
J.
//Would it be fair then, to say that the paras about 'building my subs' refer only to a limited number (essentially just close friends) or even just your one true love? Would it be fair to say they're about *maintaining* a relationship at least as much as 'domination.' (And note I don't have a problem with people maintaining friendships and loving relationships.)//
N said, Yes yes and yes, pretty much.
I also find that the level of devotion and willingness to go to the ends of the earth markedly increased in an individual who feels that they recieve some lasting positive effect from being in a relationship with me. If I want that kind of devotion, I'll gladly work to create it.
Nobody, NOBODY whose relationship with me exists PURELY of me using them as I see fit, has no limitation on that use, no circumstance under which they might not say "you know....I did this, that and the other...and THIS really sucks I'm outta here."
If there's going to be ultimate tension, resignment, etc. there has to be trust and adoration. Of the real kind, the kind that changes that from "this really sucks...but it's HER (me) we're talking about here...."
Show me someone who can legally create that with a stick and no carrot.
I asked,
About 'willingness to go to the ends of the earth' or devotion, and suggest you'll 'work' for it; and you say the result of using your methods of rewards and punishments could not be created with a stick and no carrot.
I believe I partially agree in theory, tho' I'm sure you know of cold tyrranical parents who seem to dispense no carrots and yet receive undying devotion. So it's not unheard of, in the history of human psyche.
What is going on here is the old problem of the requirements of relationship and of one's sexual needs. Relationship--with exceptions as noted-- generally do require a *perception of benefit from both sides. Indeed, mutual respect is an important ingredient.
With that established, we come to the situation, say, of someone who doesn't just want to be fucked, but to be fucked in a degrading way, or with a degraded object. From the 'caring dom/mes' one might hear ---though one may not *want* to--"I deeply respect you as I degrade you"; but you must admit there's an inherent tension between the two goals.
Freud wrote about this, with some insight; the general (classic male) problem of 'love object' and 'whore' being one instance But iirc he agreed that for some individuals there isn't a solution. To put it differently, a hubby can't make his wife a whore. He'll have to have 'separate lives'-- one with wife; one with whore.
We also see the reverse in some postings to this forum; how in the world is the wife going to get herself treated as a whore. Hence the 'Belle de Jour' fantasy.
Best,
J.
//Would it be fair then, to say that the paras about 'building my subs' refer only to a limited number (essentially just close friends) or even just your one true love? Would it be fair to say they're about *maintaining* a relationship at least as much as 'domination.' (And note I don't have a problem with people maintaining friendships and loving relationships.)//
N said, Yes yes and yes, pretty much.
I also find that the level of devotion and willingness to go to the ends of the earth markedly increased in an individual who feels that they recieve some lasting positive effect from being in a relationship with me. If I want that kind of devotion, I'll gladly work to create it.
Nobody, NOBODY whose relationship with me exists PURELY of me using them as I see fit, has no limitation on that use, no circumstance under which they might not say "you know....I did this, that and the other...and THIS really sucks I'm outta here."
If there's going to be ultimate tension, resignment, etc. there has to be trust and adoration. Of the real kind, the kind that changes that from "this really sucks...but it's HER (me) we're talking about here...."
Show me someone who can legally create that with a stick and no carrot.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
It's simple. If someone says to me "I want you to be merciless" then it's fair game.
I may once and once only say "you do realize, exactly what this might mean?"
If I get a yes, then the entire basis for a "relationship" has just changed. It's not an exchange anymore, it's all about Netzach.
This doesn't mean I'm going to be looking for ever more sociopathic ways to treat them. Their masochism may never get another nod, or it may be my ongoing intrigue. It's not about them.
On the few occasions where I became too invested in a mutual relationship with someone who then sought this kind of treatment, I knew it wasn't going to work from the get go and I bowed out.
Wife or whore. You can't have both, it's true... not with me. You can be my wife and display some totally enchanting tarty characteristics, though.
I may once and once only say "you do realize, exactly what this might mean?"
If I get a yes, then the entire basis for a "relationship" has just changed. It's not an exchange anymore, it's all about Netzach.
This doesn't mean I'm going to be looking for ever more sociopathic ways to treat them. Their masochism may never get another nod, or it may be my ongoing intrigue. It's not about them.
On the few occasions where I became too invested in a mutual relationship with someone who then sought this kind of treatment, I knew it wasn't going to work from the get go and I bowed out.
Wife or whore. You can't have both, it's true... not with me. You can be my wife and display some totally enchanting tarty characteristics, though.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi N,
you said,
It's simple. If someone says to me "I want you to be merciless" then it's fair game.
I may once and once only say "you do realize, exactly what this might mean?"
If I get a yes, then the entire basis for a "relationship" has just changed. It's not an exchange anymore, it's all about Netzach.
That distinction is the basis of the SMACK thread. Putting it from the other side, and a number threads to the contrary (including the one I initially quoted you from), the 'mutuality' and 'each is getting something' and 'fair exchange' (submission for protection and great orgasms) are simply one mode of being sexual or sexually deviant. The names don't matter, but I'd call the mutual stuff 'soft domination,' assuming there is some domination.
What you're saying is that in your case it's like switch, on or off. 'relationship' or 'other'(all about N).
This doesn't mean I'm going to be looking for ever more sociopathic ways to treat them.
I wouldn't dream of it !
Sociopathy is *definitely not encouraged in these parts, ma'am!
Their masochism may never get another nod, or it may be my ongoing intrigue. It's not about them.
On the few occasions where I became too invested in a mutual relationship with someone who then sought this kind of treatment, I knew it wasn't going to work from the get go and I bowed out.
This is a little more extreme that I would have thought, but shows the point excellently. The expression of some desires is incompatible with 'relationship.' Another way to put it, is "You can't have an hour of X" and then go back into 'equal sharing and respect. Again this contrasts with a mainstreams 'bdsm lifestyle' where, say, a hour under the whip IS an interlude--and exciting one-- in a well arranged mutally respectful relationship.
Wife or whore. You can't have both, it's true... not with me. You can be my wife and display some totally enchanting tarty characteristics, though.
You seem to be saying that any subordination you do of this 'wife' will not go so far as whoring her. This would then be an instance of 'mutuality' and 'soft domination.'
There is an interesting story, in one of the erotica annuals. In a conventional marriage, the hubby lets out that he'd like her to pee on him. She doesn't really like the idea, and discusses it with a friend, and as I recall, she's seemingly converted to the friend's view, namely 'what's the big deal?' So with hubby, she has a few drinks, and they do the deed. He's apparently satisfied, getting what he wanted. She's not in a particularly bad frame of mind, either. The last sentence though says, "She knew she would leave him."
you said,
It's simple. If someone says to me "I want you to be merciless" then it's fair game.
I may once and once only say "you do realize, exactly what this might mean?"
If I get a yes, then the entire basis for a "relationship" has just changed. It's not an exchange anymore, it's all about Netzach.
That distinction is the basis of the SMACK thread. Putting it from the other side, and a number threads to the contrary (including the one I initially quoted you from), the 'mutuality' and 'each is getting something' and 'fair exchange' (submission for protection and great orgasms) are simply one mode of being sexual or sexually deviant. The names don't matter, but I'd call the mutual stuff 'soft domination,' assuming there is some domination.
What you're saying is that in your case it's like switch, on or off. 'relationship' or 'other'(all about N).
This doesn't mean I'm going to be looking for ever more sociopathic ways to treat them.
I wouldn't dream of it !
Sociopathy is *definitely not encouraged in these parts, ma'am!
Their masochism may never get another nod, or it may be my ongoing intrigue. It's not about them.
On the few occasions where I became too invested in a mutual relationship with someone who then sought this kind of treatment, I knew it wasn't going to work from the get go and I bowed out.
This is a little more extreme that I would have thought, but shows the point excellently. The expression of some desires is incompatible with 'relationship.' Another way to put it, is "You can't have an hour of X" and then go back into 'equal sharing and respect. Again this contrasts with a mainstreams 'bdsm lifestyle' where, say, a hour under the whip IS an interlude--and exciting one-- in a well arranged mutally respectful relationship.
Wife or whore. You can't have both, it's true... not with me. You can be my wife and display some totally enchanting tarty characteristics, though.
You seem to be saying that any subordination you do of this 'wife' will not go so far as whoring her. This would then be an instance of 'mutuality' and 'soft domination.'
There is an interesting story, in one of the erotica annuals. In a conventional marriage, the hubby lets out that he'd like her to pee on him. She doesn't really like the idea, and discusses it with a friend, and as I recall, she's seemingly converted to the friend's view, namely 'what's the big deal?' So with hubby, she has a few drinks, and they do the deed. He's apparently satisfied, getting what he wanted. She's not in a particularly bad frame of mind, either. The last sentence though says, "She knew she would leave him."
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
That distinction is the basis of the SMACK thread. Putting it from the other side, and a number threads to the contrary (including the one I initially quoted you from), the 'mutuality' and 'each is getting something' and 'fair exchange' (submission for protection and great orgasms) are simply one mode of being sexual or sexually deviant. The names don't matter, but I'd call the mutual stuff 'soft domination,' assuming there is some domination.
Soft domination, to me, conjures images of feathers, whips that don't really hurt and Indulgent Mommy/little boy/girl. (which can be a fucking blast, buying a coloring book for an adult and watching her eyes light up, let me tell you....) Domination involves a whole body of behaviors between consenting and rational adults and slavery is what happens when someone invokes the idea of "no mercy" or "whatever you will" or "use me" or "own me."
What you're saying is that in your case it's like switch, on or off. 'relationship' or 'other'(all about N).
There's slavery and then there's common interaction. Don't invoke the idea of slavery casually around me, unless you never care to have a relationship as equals again. You will never have as much access to my time, person, or thoughts as anyone else. You will always be an afterthought, unless I have immediate need of you in some way and benefit from you.
You had better be capable of dedicating your life to an abstraction, because I am not perfect, but you are going to have to BELIEVE that I am.
I think the hogwash about being a good leader with a list of positive traits (mostly attributable to middle class white men, if you look really close, or at the examples used to uphold "reliability" "honesty" etc. etc....) that you have to be an ideal person, a scary contemporary UBERMENSCH to be a REAL MASTER is a good but unrealistic caution to the potential slave. I say it all boils down to "choose your words, your situation, and your surrender carefully." I'm a perfectly ideal Mistress to one person and a shitty one to another, but the idea that it's MY job to explain that, the reasons why, or monitor that, is absurd to me. If you think you're a slave, start by doing the work, assess your options, because they will make the difference between a good life and a bad life. You get one choice....me, or someone else? If you choose me, then brace yourself, because I really don't care about you, and you are saying you need that. You've hopefully talked to me about this, or watched me, or asked questions. If you came out of the blue, I'm not taking you on, but if I think we know each other, and in fact we don't, then there's leeway for some trouble which is not my responisibility once you sign your ass over.
We are not looking at Don Giovanni and Leporello here--that is servitude, a strange degree of interdependence, comeraderie between people who clock in at different societal positions. We are looking at Pozzo and Lucky, if you like literary analogies. Or the relationship I might have with a dog.
I don't seek these relationships. I'm not comfortable looking to abuse and use the rest of humanity. When someone comes to me, though, then that door is being opened, I can't say I don't respond to it, I can't say that I resist the siren call of completely narcissistic opportunity. I can wait for it, though. I can't imagine this being the major facet of my entire personality. I could never have a slave in my house, 24/7. I would have to spend more time with friends lovers and equals than I would with someone there for my convenience and comfort, and use or I'd go totally nuts.
If M suddenly expressed a desperate desire to be a slave (totally unlikely he would, or that it would work...) he'd have to move out, preferably close by, ready for usefulness.
This doesn't mean I'm going to be looking for ever more sociopathic ways to treat them.
I wouldn't dream of it !
Sociopathy is *definitely not encouraged in these parts, ma'am!
Their masochism may never get another nod, or it may be my ongoing intrigue. It's not about them.
On the few occasions where I became too invested in a mutual relationship with someone who then sought this kind of treatment, I knew it wasn't going to work from the get go and I bowed out.
This is a little more extreme that I would have thought, but shows the point excellently. The expression of some desires is incompatible with 'relationship.' Another way to put it, is "You can't have an hour of X" and then go back into 'equal sharing and respect. Again this contrasts with a mainstreams 'bdsm lifestyle' where, say, a hour under the whip IS an interlude--and exciting one-- in a well arranged mutally respectful relationship.
Well, you can have an hour of being pissed on or in, or being whipped, or being pierced, or being told you are the unholy scum of the rancid dumps of the earth on my kitchen floor, and go back to equal sharing and respect. With me, anway, which is why the pee story falls short for me. I can piss on and call a guy names and still totally respect him. That's basic, a failure to respect is based on idiotic sexist shit about what men "should want and be" that I'd love to break down in any small way.
....What I can't do and won't do is "I own you, but I am in love with you." Disconnect. I don't love the washer dryer, I don't love cars, I can't be in love with an oven. I like the Wanda/Severin example. To the degree that she loves him, she HAS to feign hatred or learn contempt, and this is why it's doomed, she can't. He can love her, the more he's in love with her, the better. A mistress is a remote ideal, the more remote and the less intimate the relationship, the more effective the ownership.
Wife or whore. You can't have both, it's true... not with me. You can be my wife and display some totally enchanting tarty characteristics, though.[/i]
You seem to be saying that any subordination you do of this 'wife' will not go so far as whoring her. This would then be an instance of 'mutuality' and 'soft domination.'
There is an interesting story, in one of the erotica annuals. In a conventional marriage, the hubby lets out that he'd like her to pee on him. She doesn't really like the idea, and discusses it with a friend, and as I recall, she's seemingly converted to the friend's view, namely 'what's the big deal?' So with hubby, she has a few drinks, and they do the deed. He's apparently satisfied, getting what he wanted. She's not in a particularly bad frame of mind, either. The last sentence though says, "She knew she would leave him." [/QUOTE]
Nice fiction device, I'd have no problem pissing all over M and keeping him, as I said. Whoring and debasing and objectification within a framework are totally compatible with a relationship as I see it. But I don't see "scene space" or "scene time" as "false." We can get into that for hours, but the idea that a roleplay is inherently a lame or fake avoidance, rather than a ritualistic expression of the emotionally authentic is not something I buy into.
What doesn't work, doesn't read, and doesn't make sense to me is "own" and "relate." Those things are incompatible in my brain. Once someone takes "own" out of specific and ritualized context, into the world of daily life, it's not a "marriage" anymore. To me, anyway.
Soft domination, to me, conjures images of feathers, whips that don't really hurt and Indulgent Mommy/little boy/girl. (which can be a fucking blast, buying a coloring book for an adult and watching her eyes light up, let me tell you....) Domination involves a whole body of behaviors between consenting and rational adults and slavery is what happens when someone invokes the idea of "no mercy" or "whatever you will" or "use me" or "own me."
What you're saying is that in your case it's like switch, on or off. 'relationship' or 'other'(all about N).
There's slavery and then there's common interaction. Don't invoke the idea of slavery casually around me, unless you never care to have a relationship as equals again. You will never have as much access to my time, person, or thoughts as anyone else. You will always be an afterthought, unless I have immediate need of you in some way and benefit from you.
You had better be capable of dedicating your life to an abstraction, because I am not perfect, but you are going to have to BELIEVE that I am.
I think the hogwash about being a good leader with a list of positive traits (mostly attributable to middle class white men, if you look really close, or at the examples used to uphold "reliability" "honesty" etc. etc....) that you have to be an ideal person, a scary contemporary UBERMENSCH to be a REAL MASTER is a good but unrealistic caution to the potential slave. I say it all boils down to "choose your words, your situation, and your surrender carefully." I'm a perfectly ideal Mistress to one person and a shitty one to another, but the idea that it's MY job to explain that, the reasons why, or monitor that, is absurd to me. If you think you're a slave, start by doing the work, assess your options, because they will make the difference between a good life and a bad life. You get one choice....me, or someone else? If you choose me, then brace yourself, because I really don't care about you, and you are saying you need that. You've hopefully talked to me about this, or watched me, or asked questions. If you came out of the blue, I'm not taking you on, but if I think we know each other, and in fact we don't, then there's leeway for some trouble which is not my responisibility once you sign your ass over.
We are not looking at Don Giovanni and Leporello here--that is servitude, a strange degree of interdependence, comeraderie between people who clock in at different societal positions. We are looking at Pozzo and Lucky, if you like literary analogies. Or the relationship I might have with a dog.
I don't seek these relationships. I'm not comfortable looking to abuse and use the rest of humanity. When someone comes to me, though, then that door is being opened, I can't say I don't respond to it, I can't say that I resist the siren call of completely narcissistic opportunity. I can wait for it, though. I can't imagine this being the major facet of my entire personality. I could never have a slave in my house, 24/7. I would have to spend more time with friends lovers and equals than I would with someone there for my convenience and comfort, and use or I'd go totally nuts.
If M suddenly expressed a desperate desire to be a slave (totally unlikely he would, or that it would work...) he'd have to move out, preferably close by, ready for usefulness.
This doesn't mean I'm going to be looking for ever more sociopathic ways to treat them.
I wouldn't dream of it !
Sociopathy is *definitely not encouraged in these parts, ma'am!
Their masochism may never get another nod, or it may be my ongoing intrigue. It's not about them.
On the few occasions where I became too invested in a mutual relationship with someone who then sought this kind of treatment, I knew it wasn't going to work from the get go and I bowed out.
This is a little more extreme that I would have thought, but shows the point excellently. The expression of some desires is incompatible with 'relationship.' Another way to put it, is "You can't have an hour of X" and then go back into 'equal sharing and respect. Again this contrasts with a mainstreams 'bdsm lifestyle' where, say, a hour under the whip IS an interlude--and exciting one-- in a well arranged mutally respectful relationship.
Well, you can have an hour of being pissed on or in, or being whipped, or being pierced, or being told you are the unholy scum of the rancid dumps of the earth on my kitchen floor, and go back to equal sharing and respect. With me, anway, which is why the pee story falls short for me. I can piss on and call a guy names and still totally respect him. That's basic, a failure to respect is based on idiotic sexist shit about what men "should want and be" that I'd love to break down in any small way.
....What I can't do and won't do is "I own you, but I am in love with you." Disconnect. I don't love the washer dryer, I don't love cars, I can't be in love with an oven. I like the Wanda/Severin example. To the degree that she loves him, she HAS to feign hatred or learn contempt, and this is why it's doomed, she can't. He can love her, the more he's in love with her, the better. A mistress is a remote ideal, the more remote and the less intimate the relationship, the more effective the ownership.
Wife or whore. You can't have both, it's true... not with me. You can be my wife and display some totally enchanting tarty characteristics, though.[/i]
You seem to be saying that any subordination you do of this 'wife' will not go so far as whoring her. This would then be an instance of 'mutuality' and 'soft domination.'
There is an interesting story, in one of the erotica annuals. In a conventional marriage, the hubby lets out that he'd like her to pee on him. She doesn't really like the idea, and discusses it with a friend, and as I recall, she's seemingly converted to the friend's view, namely 'what's the big deal?' So with hubby, she has a few drinks, and they do the deed. He's apparently satisfied, getting what he wanted. She's not in a particularly bad frame of mind, either. The last sentence though says, "She knew she would leave him." [/QUOTE]
Nice fiction device, I'd have no problem pissing all over M and keeping him, as I said. Whoring and debasing and objectification within a framework are totally compatible with a relationship as I see it. But I don't see "scene space" or "scene time" as "false." We can get into that for hours, but the idea that a roleplay is inherently a lame or fake avoidance, rather than a ritualistic expression of the emotionally authentic is not something I buy into.
What doesn't work, doesn't read, and doesn't make sense to me is "own" and "relate." Those things are incompatible in my brain. Once someone takes "own" out of specific and ritualized context, into the world of daily life, it's not a "marriage" anymore. To me, anyway.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Netzach,
That was an extremely articulate and well stated posting that clarifies many points, hopefully not just for me, but for some others who may drop by. I comment below. Your words, minus the questions they responded to, are in italics. Mine are plain text.
Soft domination, to me, conjures images of feathers, whips that don't really hurt and Indulgent Mommy/little boy/girl. (which can be a fucking blast, buying a coloring book for an adult and watching her eyes light up, let me tell you....) Domination involves a whole body of behaviors between consenting and rational adults and slavery is what happens when someone invokes the idea of "no mercy" or "whatever you will" or "use me" or "own me." [...]
I don't want to argue about terminology, so I'll use the term 'conventional domination' to cover most of what you refer to; many, but not necessarily all forms of 'erotic slavery'; it will cover those where the slave can contemplate and consider/weigh the alternative of walking out the door, but not cover other more extreme types, imo.
There's slavery and then there's common interaction. Don't invoke the idea of slavery casually around me, unless you never care to have a relationship as equals again. You will never have as much access to my time, person, or thoughts as anyone else. You will always be an afterthought, unless I have immediate need of you in some way and benefit from you. [...]
What I want to do, for now, is focus on short term encounters, and leave aside longterm 'arrangements.' (concordant with the set up of the thread).
Well, you can have an hour of being pissed on or in, or being whipped, or being pierced, or being told you are the unholy scum of the rancid dumps of the earth on my kitchen floor, and go back to equal sharing and respect. With me, anway, which is why the pee story falls short for me. I can piss on and call a guy names and still totally respect him. That's basic, a failure to respect is based on idiotic sexist shit about what men "should want and be" that I'd love to break down in any small way. [...]
....What I can't do and won't do is "I own you, but I am in love with you." Disconnect. I don't love the washer dryer, I don't love cars, I can't be in love with an oven. I like the Wanda/Severin example. To the degree that she loves him, she HAS to feign hatred or learn contempt, and this is why it's doomed, she can't. He can love her, the more he's in love with her, the better. A mistress is a remote ideal, the more remote and the less intimate the relationship, the more effective the ownership. [...]
Here's where things are still a bit unclear; you're saying you can envision 'relationship' with all/many kinds of degradation, name calling, pissing. These can involve respect. BUT there's no relationship when there's ownership, since that's a slave, become like a stove.
Let's just focus on one encounter/event of an hour or so. I recall your words slavery is what happens when someone invokes the idea of "no mercy" or "whatever you will" or "use me" or "own me."
Here there's an slide from 'no mercy' to 'use me' to 'own me'. These do not seem synonymous. Why can't there be an hour or so of 'no mercy' or 'use me.'?
Also, you say,
I can piss on and call a guy names and still totally respect him. That's basic, a failure to respect is based on idiotic sexist shit about what men "should want and be" that I'd love to break down in any small way.
If I read you correctly, you're saying that there's sexist shit ideas of what a man should be. You don't subscribe to them. Hence you can piss on, call degrading names etc. and still respect, --so to speak, say to yourself, "This pissed on person IS a man, and worth of respect as such, according to my understanding of the 'r' word."
I see the position theoretically, but in practice I wonder, doesn't an hour of really degrading your partner (almost without mercy) fit ill with the relationship? You seem to be saying "I degrade you" goes fine with "I love you." But I use you without mercy do not (for that would mean that the 'you' person is become an object).
Though I haven't looked at Wanda for a while, it seems to me that she rejected the emotional dependency and control that she faced in this alleged (highly manipulative) slave (common features, I argue, in 'conventional domination'). You seem to be implying that the degree of 'having no mercy' was the problem. (Maybe it was, I don't remember clearly.)
In a word, and focusing on shot term degradation --and leaving aside longterm slavery arrangements-- I do agree that in some sense a bond is preserved. What I cant tell is if you're saying the extremes of degradation preclude any bond. Your 'I can piss on...' statement seems to say so. OTOH, where I can see 'no mercy' easily coming into such a scene, you seem claim elsewhere, ("slavery is what happens when...[have] 'no mercy ...[apparently equated to].'own me' ") that that would reduce the recipient to an object.
I'm not sure if this is clear, and puzzled by your statement about how far very far degradation in a 'mutual' and respectful relationship can go.
Thanks for some interesting discussion.
That was an extremely articulate and well stated posting that clarifies many points, hopefully not just for me, but for some others who may drop by. I comment below. Your words, minus the questions they responded to, are in italics. Mine are plain text.
Soft domination, to me, conjures images of feathers, whips that don't really hurt and Indulgent Mommy/little boy/girl. (which can be a fucking blast, buying a coloring book for an adult and watching her eyes light up, let me tell you....) Domination involves a whole body of behaviors between consenting and rational adults and slavery is what happens when someone invokes the idea of "no mercy" or "whatever you will" or "use me" or "own me." [...]
I don't want to argue about terminology, so I'll use the term 'conventional domination' to cover most of what you refer to; many, but not necessarily all forms of 'erotic slavery'; it will cover those where the slave can contemplate and consider/weigh the alternative of walking out the door, but not cover other more extreme types, imo.
There's slavery and then there's common interaction. Don't invoke the idea of slavery casually around me, unless you never care to have a relationship as equals again. You will never have as much access to my time, person, or thoughts as anyone else. You will always be an afterthought, unless I have immediate need of you in some way and benefit from you. [...]
What I want to do, for now, is focus on short term encounters, and leave aside longterm 'arrangements.' (concordant with the set up of the thread).
Well, you can have an hour of being pissed on or in, or being whipped, or being pierced, or being told you are the unholy scum of the rancid dumps of the earth on my kitchen floor, and go back to equal sharing and respect. With me, anway, which is why the pee story falls short for me. I can piss on and call a guy names and still totally respect him. That's basic, a failure to respect is based on idiotic sexist shit about what men "should want and be" that I'd love to break down in any small way. [...]
....What I can't do and won't do is "I own you, but I am in love with you." Disconnect. I don't love the washer dryer, I don't love cars, I can't be in love with an oven. I like the Wanda/Severin example. To the degree that she loves him, she HAS to feign hatred or learn contempt, and this is why it's doomed, she can't. He can love her, the more he's in love with her, the better. A mistress is a remote ideal, the more remote and the less intimate the relationship, the more effective the ownership. [...]
Here's where things are still a bit unclear; you're saying you can envision 'relationship' with all/many kinds of degradation, name calling, pissing. These can involve respect. BUT there's no relationship when there's ownership, since that's a slave, become like a stove.
Let's just focus on one encounter/event of an hour or so. I recall your words slavery is what happens when someone invokes the idea of "no mercy" or "whatever you will" or "use me" or "own me."
Here there's an slide from 'no mercy' to 'use me' to 'own me'. These do not seem synonymous. Why can't there be an hour or so of 'no mercy' or 'use me.'?
Also, you say,
I can piss on and call a guy names and still totally respect him. That's basic, a failure to respect is based on idiotic sexist shit about what men "should want and be" that I'd love to break down in any small way.
If I read you correctly, you're saying that there's sexist shit ideas of what a man should be. You don't subscribe to them. Hence you can piss on, call degrading names etc. and still respect, --so to speak, say to yourself, "This pissed on person IS a man, and worth of respect as such, according to my understanding of the 'r' word."
I see the position theoretically, but in practice I wonder, doesn't an hour of really degrading your partner (almost without mercy) fit ill with the relationship? You seem to be saying "I degrade you" goes fine with "I love you." But I use you without mercy do not (for that would mean that the 'you' person is become an object).
Though I haven't looked at Wanda for a while, it seems to me that she rejected the emotional dependency and control that she faced in this alleged (highly manipulative) slave (common features, I argue, in 'conventional domination'). You seem to be implying that the degree of 'having no mercy' was the problem. (Maybe it was, I don't remember clearly.)
In a word, and focusing on shot term degradation --and leaving aside longterm slavery arrangements-- I do agree that in some sense a bond is preserved. What I cant tell is if you're saying the extremes of degradation preclude any bond. Your 'I can piss on...' statement seems to say so. OTOH, where I can see 'no mercy' easily coming into such a scene, you seem claim elsewhere, ("slavery is what happens when...[have] 'no mercy ...[apparently equated to].'own me' ") that that would reduce the recipient to an object.
I'm not sure if this is clear, and puzzled by your statement about how far very far degradation in a 'mutual' and respectful relationship can go.
Thanks for some interesting discussion.
Last edited:
Phoenix Stone
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Posts
- 1,292
edited to fix as much pre-coffee blathering as possible
hmmm, can you be in love with someone who is your slave, among other questions. Interesting discussion.
How about a different way of parsing it out? Does this add anything, or is it off the point?
Instead of seeing it as an issue of whether you can love someone who isn't your equal, and maybe doesn't want to be, how about looking at it differently? For some, being equal, if it's even possible is besides the point. Relationships can be about going deeper into who you Are, about going deeper into either love and/or sex. Going deeper in my love for the other person, and/or going deeper in what is sexually satisfying. (There is still the problem in the latter case, of 'deeper into what is more sexually satisfying' for whom? You or me?)
While I haven't tried to love someone who was my slave (which is a big disadvantage in being positive about this), I have loved people who weren't my 'equal' in some regard or other, and I'm pretty sure I could still love someone who was my slave. Because helping them to get where they want to be is part of going deeper into love with them. The same thing for going deeper into sex. I would want to help him/her go deeper into what turned him/her on, and to go deeper myself.
(Btw, this solves for me the problem/question I keep seeing on the board of whether one will want or need to get into more and more hardcore bdsm as one goes along, which implies a fear that bdsm is somehow addictive. the answer is, 'yes, if that was always your proclivity, and no, if it wasn't.' It's only addicting, if More, or Harder, is what pushes your buttons.)
the hard parts to me are figuring out and honing in on those triggers. And the problem of mismatched proclivities. Especially the latter.
What to do if you love someone and thus want to help them go deeper, yet the place they want to go is anathema to you?
(And this is what I sense in you, Netzach. That having a slave would just be icky to you, which would eventually use up your good grace and patience. Somehow your arguments seem to be saying that it's about them, rather than about your preferences, however.)
hmmm, can you be in love with someone who is your slave, among other questions. Interesting discussion.
How about a different way of parsing it out? Does this add anything, or is it off the point?
Instead of seeing it as an issue of whether you can love someone who isn't your equal, and maybe doesn't want to be, how about looking at it differently? For some, being equal, if it's even possible is besides the point. Relationships can be about going deeper into who you Are, about going deeper into either love and/or sex. Going deeper in my love for the other person, and/or going deeper in what is sexually satisfying. (There is still the problem in the latter case, of 'deeper into what is more sexually satisfying' for whom? You or me?)
While I haven't tried to love someone who was my slave (which is a big disadvantage in being positive about this), I have loved people who weren't my 'equal' in some regard or other, and I'm pretty sure I could still love someone who was my slave. Because helping them to get where they want to be is part of going deeper into love with them. The same thing for going deeper into sex. I would want to help him/her go deeper into what turned him/her on, and to go deeper myself.
(Btw, this solves for me the problem/question I keep seeing on the board of whether one will want or need to get into more and more hardcore bdsm as one goes along, which implies a fear that bdsm is somehow addictive. the answer is, 'yes, if that was always your proclivity, and no, if it wasn't.' It's only addicting, if More, or Harder, is what pushes your buttons.)
the hard parts to me are figuring out and honing in on those triggers. And the problem of mismatched proclivities. Especially the latter.
What to do if you love someone and thus want to help them go deeper, yet the place they want to go is anathema to you?
(And this is what I sense in you, Netzach. That having a slave would just be icky to you, which would eventually use up your good grace and patience. Somehow your arguments seem to be saying that it's about them, rather than about your preferences, however.)
Last edited:
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Pure...
I spoke to that one issue. I just didn't give you the answers you personally went looking for. Can you have degredation in an ongoing loving mutual relationship?
Of the "please pee on me, ok, I like the idea of peeing on you, sounds good...lift leg pssssst" variety....yes yes yes and yes. I think you can. I think you can do it every day.
You could even do
"please don't pee on me!"
"But I shall!"
"You mustn't!"
"I must!" lift leg...pssst
"sob sob. You brute." (ahhhh)
And go back to something resembling mutuality, agreement, compromise.
What I can't have is a mutualistic situation in which I have a self-described, self-identified passive, owned piss-object at my disposal who suddenly wants to jump up and become buddies again afterward. It's like my toilet suddenly wanting to hug. No thanks. Or fine, but then you're more than my toilet, aren't you? And you've made a choice. One I have no inherent issues with. I rather prefer a perverted freak I can whip as much as works for us both who can lunch with me and discuss "Middlesex" over white wine, to a beast I can whip all I want. Though sometimes it sure is nice to feel the rush of personal manifest destiny in one's veins.
Can that person be the same person? In the short term, temporal, maybe. Sometimes. What normally happens is that human interaction wins over objectification. Usually because it's the interesting, compelling, intelligent kinds who need the objectification so badly. I accept that the fire will probably fizzle and keep a distance. Objectification fiends attract me, what can I say? Keeping it apersonal helps keep it...apersonal. That I have learned. So if I'm talking to someone who is looking for the chattel experience I tend not to ask them any more what they like, or do, or dream of, or want, other than the opportunity to be my floor mat. I don't want to know.
I used to be saddened that M was so NOT ok with the humiliation and verbal abuse games that I love so well, and now I think it's a blessing in disguise. I'm past the point of really being able to maltreat him, in utter honesty. SM is a terrific adventure for us both, and it's more fun than sturm und drang or force. There's a lost art of lightness and ease and play...I'm doing my own part to make sure that these values don't get tossed in the heavy, theoretical, Dee ess that predominates discourse.
I have no particular theories about what other relationships can and can't be like, only that I look around at "my slave, my wife" situations and I can't fathom being in one.
I spoke to that one issue. I just didn't give you the answers you personally went looking for. Can you have degredation in an ongoing loving mutual relationship?
Of the "please pee on me, ok, I like the idea of peeing on you, sounds good...lift leg pssssst" variety....yes yes yes and yes. I think you can. I think you can do it every day.
You could even do
"please don't pee on me!"
"But I shall!"
"You mustn't!"
"I must!" lift leg...pssst
"sob sob. You brute." (ahhhh)
And go back to something resembling mutuality, agreement, compromise.
What I can't have is a mutualistic situation in which I have a self-described, self-identified passive, owned piss-object at my disposal who suddenly wants to jump up and become buddies again afterward. It's like my toilet suddenly wanting to hug. No thanks. Or fine, but then you're more than my toilet, aren't you? And you've made a choice. One I have no inherent issues with. I rather prefer a perverted freak I can whip as much as works for us both who can lunch with me and discuss "Middlesex" over white wine, to a beast I can whip all I want. Though sometimes it sure is nice to feel the rush of personal manifest destiny in one's veins.
Can that person be the same person? In the short term, temporal, maybe. Sometimes. What normally happens is that human interaction wins over objectification. Usually because it's the interesting, compelling, intelligent kinds who need the objectification so badly. I accept that the fire will probably fizzle and keep a distance. Objectification fiends attract me, what can I say? Keeping it apersonal helps keep it...apersonal. That I have learned. So if I'm talking to someone who is looking for the chattel experience I tend not to ask them any more what they like, or do, or dream of, or want, other than the opportunity to be my floor mat. I don't want to know.
I used to be saddened that M was so NOT ok with the humiliation and verbal abuse games that I love so well, and now I think it's a blessing in disguise. I'm past the point of really being able to maltreat him, in utter honesty. SM is a terrific adventure for us both, and it's more fun than sturm und drang or force. There's a lost art of lightness and ease and play...I'm doing my own part to make sure that these values don't get tossed in the heavy, theoretical, Dee ess that predominates discourse.
I have no particular theories about what other relationships can and can't be like, only that I look around at "my slave, my wife" situations and I can't fathom being in one.
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Interruption. Announcement
There is a most excellent story, Issues, by Quint at
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=106674
It has many creative and off the wall characteristics, and deals with the sort of encounter linked with the thread topic: the amoral SM urges in lots of people.
Kudos. Quint.
There is a most excellent story, Issues, by Quint at
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=106674
It has many creative and off the wall characteristics, and deals with the sort of encounter linked with the thread topic: the amoral SM urges in lots of people.
Kudos. Quint.
Last edited:
