SMACK--a concept, a gathering. Welcome.

[Esclava]

Oh my!

I've only read part 1 and I'm still trembling with suprressed ... arousal. Nicely done, Quint.

It seems to me that Melissa tapped into her base nature when she began "free-writing" with a vengance (I liked that). It was probably the first real look at her deepest, darkest desires and it scared her.

IMO, when the subconscious sends a message that manifests itself in masochistic arousal and subsequent orgasm, it becomes much easier to "accept" acts which acquiese to the body's desires. Not only did she envision the desire to be brutalized in her mind as she wrote, but she was able to descend into her own masochistic reality in order to find satisfaction. That simple act of masturbation threw open the doors of her mind!

I see the bad grade and admonishment for not free-writing as a "slap" - more pain - another way the subconscious goes about attaining what it wants. The very fact that Melissa couldn't get out the verbal castration was a peek into what was going on in her psyche - the old battling with the new in a "winner take all" struggle that would control her for the rest of her life - much like what happens in real life.

I can't wait to see what happens next and would venture a guess that many who have walked this path of exploration and self discovery right down into the recesses of SM have loved every minute of the journey!

Esclava

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Hi Netzach,

guess I can see some of why my comments got no response. Went back and attempted to clarify the worst of the incoherent pre-coffee babblings -- and am still hoping....

Anyway, there is LOTs of stuff I wish was still up for comment from earlier postings (may do it anyway). Especially from bridgeburner about what turns her on about cruelty, as I'm in much the same boat.

Off to read Quints story now, and thanks.

 

[Netzach]

Not really an intentional dis, just not really clear on what the question is.

I don't find owning a slave icky, though. And I have, albeit not for more than four or five months.

I do find the idea of then marrying that person icky, or acting in selfless consideration of someone who, fundamentally, fully cognizant, has asked me to make them chattel and treat them as a possession. I don't want to have to think about my possessions as often as I think about my spouse.

This is what has worked for me.

 

[Esclava]

...I do find the idea of then marrying that person icky, or acting in selfless consideration of someone who, fundamentally, fully cognizant, has asked me to make them chattel and treat them as a possession. I don't want to have to think about my possessions as often as I think about my spouse.

This is what has worked for me.

I, actually, understand that thought process, Netzach. One would not bestow selfless love and affection on a possession - just because they happened to be human. There is no "power exchange" with you - if someone gives their power up to you, it is taken along with whatever it was that made them human. Cool!

Something else to consider on the journey. Thanks!

Esclava

 

[Pure]

Netzach said, in part,

I do find the idea of then marrying that [slave] person icky, or acting in selfless consideration of someone who, fundamentally, fully cognizant, has asked me to make them chattel and treat them as a possession. I don't want to have to think about my possessions as often as I think about my spouse.

I do appreciate your words of wisdom, and though you think I 'want to hear' something, that may not be the case, as opposed to wanted sincerity and reflection.

In reading over the last pages, perhaps a core issue have gotten drowned in words. Let's take it as give you don' t want a 'toilet' for a fiance, and even suppose that's not an uncommon view.

I believe, then, you are agreeing that certain odd desires don't fit in a 'mutual' 'sexually gratifying on both sides' and 'caring' relationship.

As to your explanation of what you don't want, I don't have a problem with you're saying "I can't respect someone who wants X." I would argue with any attempt to generalize (if that's what you're suggesting): Someone who wants X cannot be respected by anyone. Lots of people are loved despite their false beliefs (e.g., the belief that one is inferior; that one does not deserve to live [as in Sophies Choice]).

So I wouldn't go along, in your dramatic example, with saying (if indeed you do), the toilet desire in itself renders the person unlovable (to all but the sick).

I think you and I read the Wanda story a little differently. I'm not sure it's so much the 'chattel' thing that's the main put off, as the constant attempts to control and manipulate.

Many self-said 'subs' are controllers and manipulators, and that's why there are many threads about how careful a prospective 'sub' should be in making certain statements and oblique requests or even demands.

So this 'off putting' characteristic may have nothing much to do with (presented desires for) 'objectification' or 'chattelhood', but more to do with obnoxious attempts to emotionally manipulate and extract love out of the other in the form one wishes.

Best,
J.

 

[Esclava]

<snip> ... So this 'off putting' characteristic may have nothing much to do with (presented desires for) 'objectification' or 'chattelhood', but more to do with obnoxious attempts to emotionally manipulate and extract love out of the other in the form one wishes.

Best,
J.

IMO, one should ask for what one wants up front and make it non-negotiable. If it is something the Dom desires or feels you deserve, perhaps you will be fortunate enough to get it.

If you want to be used as a toilet, but still spoken to with sweet words and stroked as though you were the most precious attachment to Dom's heart; then ASK for that up front. The worst thing that can happen is Dom will say, "NO!" Then you will know that your needs cannot be met by that Dom and should be able to move on in your search or with your life.

You are correct, Pure, regarding the manipulation tactics used by subs (and Doms as well). Dishonesty has no place in a M/s or D/s relationship because one cannot trust someone to respond to a safeword in a very physical scene - if they cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

Alternatively, if one can find a Dom that believes their toilet is endearing ... then find a sub that thinks being a toilet is an honor above all else, then perhaps one has found the ultimate match made in ... the sewer - destined for the alter, a civil ceremony or some other contract of unbreakable love/lust to shake the very foundation of the defense of marriage act! (a little levity here - )

Esclava

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Not really an intentional dis, just not really clear on what the question is....

I do find the idea of then marrying that person icky, or acting in selfless consideration of someone who, fundamentally, fully cognizant, has asked me to make them chattel and treat them as a possession. I don't want to have to think about my possessions as often as I think about my spouse.

This is what has worked for me.

I'll try reframing my comments as questions, then. Have you loved someome before whom you didn't feel was your equal in some regard or another? Part of what you said sounded like you wanted to feel your partner is an equal but this would asking to be treated as slave, as completely unequal, would preclude your regarding them, otherwise as equal. Have you loved someone so deeply before that you just wanted to take them where they wanted to be, no matter where it was? Had the love come first, before you knew their proclivities? What if you fell in love with someone who then turned out to want to be treated as a possession? Would it make you immediately fall out of love, would put them outside the rhelm of possible love interest?
(There are a few bents that would do that for me -- child molester, for one. And no matter how much I loved someone, it's hard for me to picture myself participating in scat sex. Don't know if knowing that was what my loved one craved would dissolve my love, though.)
And I guess the part of sex that is about going deeper into one's proclivities, both mine and the other persons, is what does it for me sexually. Don't know if that is a subbie need to serve, or not. And does love take you away from your dom side?

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?

 

[Netzach]

Pure, it's not a lack of respect when you are willing to respect the extreme kink of a person, kinked to no-respect, is it, really?

If someone is erotically geared to "spit on me" as I see it, trying to convince him he's better than that is the ultimate fuck you.

I would not marry someone who presented himself to me as a toilet first, foremost and primarily. Neither would I say that I could not find such a person engaging, worth my time, or generaly worthy of humane treatment outside his/her perverse passion.

If my fiance suddenly developed a passion for brown, well, it's not exactly where I'm aiming to go in life, but I'd have no major issues being with him, doing the deed etc. I think maybe I've got the cart before the horse in the way I've painted this...

what can't happen is that the fiance will never be "just" a toilet. I can't go back over that line in the other direction.

So, the slave candidate who really wants a totally objectifying, derisive experience, had better keep a few polite steps back.

 

[Netzach]

Phoenix, my only experience in that was in being the party that needed to go to the anathema place.

That sounds kinda freaky and fun, almost, heh.

But it was pretty agonizing and I don't think most relationships weather that, mine didn't.

My ex is happily dating a wholesome egalitarian leftist.

And I am happily beating the masses.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Phoenix, my only experience in that was in being the party that needed to go to the anathema place.

That sounds kinda freaky and fun, almost, heh.

But it was pretty agonizing and I don't think most relationships weather that, mine didn't.

My ex is happily dating a wholesome egalitarian leftist.

And I am happily beating the masses.

Ouch and to the first part but Lol to your last line.

You really answered my question in response to Pure. It does seem like it would be hard to wholeheartedly go to contempt on the one hand, even to go all the way there just for sex, not 24/7, over a long period and love wholeheartedly at the same time. Kind of a paradox or oxymoron or conundrum or something. And yet....

Does full slavery, fully giving yourself over to someone, really mean 'toilet'? 'Object' seems more neutral a way to look at it. And in some way, don't we all do that when we truly love? Give ourselves over? Isn't the slave thing for most people about being treated anyway the partner wishes, rather than about being treated poorly, per se? About serving and giving away all control? Yes, it's abject, but is it truly 'object'? I suppose it depends quite a lot on the person, but it seems more like making yourself someone's pet, someone's dog, than their toilet. I mean most people's dogs would let their owners treat them quite poorly and 'come back for more' but would prefer being treated well. Would you have a dog?

 

[Netzach]

I'm a cat person. That probably doesn't surprise you.

We're getting into the realm of fetish here more than D/s, not discussing someone willing to be treated poorly as much as we are discussing someone *aching* to be treated poorly.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Ah Jeez, you guys -- don't let me be a thread killer here -- if I'm off-topic, just bring it back!

This is a terrific, interesting thoughtful thread. Don't let's lose it! Pure? Netzach? Hmmm?

Ps. I'm a cat person, too.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I jacked ysterday to the idea of having a slave sleep in bed with me and when I needed to pee; I would do it down her throat and not have to get up. A lazy man's dream.

Is this SWACK material, Pure?

 

[Esclava]

I jacked ysterday to the idea of having a slave sleep in bed with me and when I needed to pee; I would do it down her throat and not have to get up. A lazy man's dream.

Is this SWACK material, Pure?

It might be a "lazy man's dream," but if you were a Domme, you might as well get up...

Esclava

 

[Esclava]

It might be a "lazy man's dream," but if you were a Domme, you might as well get up...

Esclava

...or consign yourself to sleeping in a wet bed the rest of the night!

Esclava

 

[Pure]

RR said,

I jacked ysterday to the idea of having a slave sleep in bed with me and when I needed to pee; I would do it down her throat and not have to get up. A lazy man's dream.

Is this SWACK material, Pure?

Yep, sounds demeaning enough, provided you don't follow Netzach's noble path and tell that having someone do that for you would make you cross her of your 'marriage prospects' list.

Esclava said,

It [such peeing] might be a "lazy man's dream," but if you were a Domme, you might as well get up...

Yes a domme would need to take a bit more care; or, if fastidious, do as an acquaintaince does, and have the toilet boi sleep nearby but not in the same bed.

Phoenix said,
Does full slavery, fully giving yourself over to someone, really mean 'toilet'? 'Object' seems more neutral a way to look at it. And in some way, don't we all do that when we truly love? Give ourselves over? Isn't the slave thing for most people about being treated anyway the partner wishes, rather than about being treated poorly, per se? About serving and giving away all control? Yes, it's abject, but is it truly 'object'?

I don't think this killed the thread, it was an excellent point. The object is not really, as N would have it, like a clothes dryer, but is a human-demeaned-to-object.

As to 'poorly', I go along with the drift, but I hold--though N will never agree--that to demean, impose on, subordinate (etc.) another is based on encountering--and engaging-- resistance (doing something not wanted, in that sense 'poor treatment'), unless there's been a suitably long period of mental spiritual re-formation (roughly, induction of a slave-like mentality).

J.

 

[Netzach]

I've done this without a wet bed.

Proximity, not aim, peeps.

Pure...so is D/s reduced to:

Make me do things I don't want because I find that fulfilling.

Ummm on some level if they are fulfilled they wanted it. People are not fulfilled by rape, (the actual factual) house fires, and floods.

I think fetish plays a bigger role here than a lot would like to admit, and I think that demeaning is something I define in its relation to societal codes and their relative absorption and rejection versus one party forcing the other in a dyad of two simple individuals in love luv or lust.

 

[bridgeburner]

Netzach,

I think fetish plays a bigger role here than a lot would like to admit

Why is that? I mean, what's the deal with people denying fetish? The only thing I can think is that it is somehow not "heavy" enough for them. To allow that something is a fetish is to somehow undermine its legitimacy for most people. "fetish is for creepy weirdos still living at home with their mothers at the age of 45."

So often I see D/s described in these ginormous, spiritually all -encompassing, thousand-points-of-light, fullfillment-of-the-soul's-destiny type ways and mostly that just makes me firf. "We're freer and more satisfied and more tuned in and less judgemental and having better orgasms than all you other people. We're special dammit!"

Well, yeah, so is everyone.

Do I really need to get all cosmic about why it turns me on to be held down and fucked? Does there really have to be some 90 page contract and four hour discussion about what my submission or my mastery means to me before somebody can just put on the leather ass-pants and do what feels good?

I don't mean that there are no issues worth pondering --- hell, I like to think and talk about this stuff as much as the next pervert ---- I just mean why does it all have to be life or death serious? It seems to take a lot of the fun and the kink out of it as far as I'm concerned.

Or perhaps I've been struck by a low-flying tangent and this has nothing to do with anything you meant to be talking about to begin with. ;->

-B

 

[Phoenix Stone]

hijack

Oh, fun! I don't know which I want to try first -- getting hit by a low-flying tangent, or learning how to firf!

ps

/hijack

 

[Pure]

N: "I think fetish plays a bigger role here than a lot would like to admit"

I wonder who this scabrous lot are? Most of my stories have large fetishistic elements.

I can certainly see pee and/or peeing as fetish. It need have no 'heavy' or 'power' overtones. A asks B. Would you pee in this cup? B does and hands it to A, who starts to drink it and get highly aroused.

Netzach said: so is D/s reduced to

This thread was not founded as being about D/S, and if you note, I rarely use the terms. Indeed, since this enterprize focuses discussion on things that happen outside routines and pre-arrangement and explicit consent, most D/S material, especially as 'lifestyle,' is outside the scope of this thread.

In ancestry, remember this thread is offspring of the Top thread which poked fun at 'dominate masters' and their routines.

Bridgeburner said,

So often I see D/s described in these ginormous, spiritually all -encompassing, thousand-points-of-light, fullfillment-of-the-soul's-destiny type ways and mostly that just makes me firf. "We're freer and more satisfied and more tuned in and less judgemental and having better orgasms than all you other people. We're special dammit!"

D/S can mean what its practicers say, and the official positions of their organizations. In its spritualized form, it is indeed highly pretentious. Note that the Sadeian tradition is atheistic, even materialistic.

The thread is about the amoral sexual impulses as played out in imagination and r.l.; special focus is on cruel ones, those called S/M. (And insofar as M himself, attempted to routinize and control his r/l situation it becomes of less interest to us.)

J.

 

[rosco rathbone]

smack moment du jour:

i tailed a tall leggy female in a skintight black catsuit with huge blowout red perm/fro and impeccable asscheeks all the way to the wrong end of the 42nd street train platform...all because I thought she was chinese.

for a chinese girl to have that ass, those huge DJ headphones, those futuristic goth platform boots, and to be walking so sexy and fast...it was all too much. i kept seeing men spinning around to look at her.

i had no reason to believe she was chinese; except for her hair. that's the kind of over-the-top, tasteless, clueless hairstyle that only a slutty asian girl would think of.

imagine my deflation when she turned out to be rican, with only vaguely asiatic eye slant. i didn't even go to my bank as planned, i was at wrong end of platform and sea of commuters.

that is what following the penis on a whim will do to your plans.

 

[Pure]

In the universe there are forces of creation and of destruction.

A part of the sex drive is connected to creation, --that's the normal urges--esp. if there is a tendency to stable relationship and procreation.

Another part is connected to destruction, esp self-destruction**-- many of the deviant urges.

There is a link between deviancy and self destruction.

Discuss.


**Freud's thanatos

 

[Netzach]

N: "I think fetish plays a bigger role here than a lot would like to admit"

I wonder who this scabrous lot are? Most of my stories have large fetishistic elements.

The scabrous lot may or may not be present, I have no idea what individuals relationship to fetish is, only that BB and I notice a similar trend in posts and discourse.

I can certainly see pee and/or peeing as fetish. It need have no 'heavy' or 'power' overtones. A asks B. Would you pee in this cup? B does and hands it to A, who starts to drink it and get highly aroused.

Right, but that's not SMACK either? It's still just perverts doing perverted things....If I'm catching your vibe correctly SMACK requires someone not getting off on it and having it imposed. Never mind the basic intrinsic anti-social nature of piss drinking, the fact that the vast majority of the western world and probably the rest of the world would view this as really...wrong in context. Do we need a Jacobean revolution and a Church to be asocial?

To me, that's what's missing, is a discussion of totally mutually fulfilling, easily agreed to, complicit asocial behavior. Fuck force. When a piss fiend drinks a champagne flute of pee pee two people have just gone to sexual bat with a wide world of disapproval....is this renegade stance simply, in and of itself, not SMACK?

Netzach said: so is D/s reduced to

This thread was not founded as being about D/S, and if you note, I rarely use the terms. Indeed, since this enterprize focuses discussion on things that happen outside routines and pre-arrangement and explicit consent, most D/S material, especially as 'lifestyle,' is outside the scope of this thread.

In ancestry, remember this thread is offspring of the Top thread which poked fun at 'dominate masters' and their routines.

Ok, my bad I suppose. D/s and SMACK seem to share this need for "imposition" in order to achieve their brand of "authenticity" in the case of D/s for the alleged betterment of both parties in the case of SMACK for the enjoyment of one party, or am I totally off the mark? OR can SMACK be defined, as I am hinting, in more broad and societal terms?

Bridgeburner said,

So often I see D/s described in these ginormous, spiritually all -encompassing, thousand-points-of-light, fullfillment-of-the-soul's-destiny type ways and mostly that just makes me firf. "We're freer and more satisfied and more tuned in and less judgemental and having better orgasms than all you other people. We're special dammit!"

D/S can mean what its practicers say, and the official positions of their organizations. In its spritualized form, it is indeed highly pretentious. Note that the Sadeian tradition is atheistic, even materialistic.

The thread is about the amoral sexual impulses as played out in imagination and r.l.; special focus is on cruel ones, those called S/M. (And insofar as M himself, attempted to routinize and control his r/l situation it becomes of less interest to us.)

J.

What I see missing from all this discourse, and what was present in the Topopolis thread to some degree, was a placement of anti-social or a-social impulse in relation to a dominant cultural message, or a percieved one. (in RR's case, quasi-feminist mainstream contemporary industrialized sexual malaise) SMACK has touched on questions of individual, will, and mutuality or lack thereof. But transgression to me, is riper when it's a conspiracy of two, rather than a transgression of one against one.

I'm just hashing these ideas out...some piss for thought, as it were.

 

[rosco rathbone]

The scabrous role of pee

 

[rosco rathbone]

poo is out of the question...simply not done, dear boy


more champage, viscount?