SMACK--a concept, a gathering. Welcome.

[Quint]

Gosh, I'm having fun.

So let's see...the laugh in fictional account #1. It could have purely inflamed the child-id of the female that hates to be ridiculed, as Bridgeburner said. The reaction would then be from anger--"you hurt me, I'll show you." Regain a little control. Kajira, if I'm not mistaken, you saw that the laugh provoked an entirely different reaction: he laughed because he knew she wanted it, and she was a little afraid because she knew she wanted it too; more, she knew that HE knew. So the spitting would have been done from fear of that desire, perhaps unwillingness to accept it. Or unwillingness to let him know she wanted it--"I don't really want this, see? This is how little I want it." (This wouldn't need to be mutually exclusive; it could hurt on the surface level of ridicule, and also on the deeper level of "but I really do want this...I wish I didn't, and I really wish he didn't know I do.") Or am I wrong and you just meant she wanted to instigate further action on his part?

I love how complex the psyche is, that we can all find different meaning behind a laugh and a wad of saliva.

 

[Pure]

Hi Netzach,
A 'heartless bitch' is always welcome!

As to your specific example:

I'm a calculating heartless fucking bitch.

But I don't think I play as close to the viscerae as the rest of y'all.

My spitting is done with the craven pleading for it. I pry his mouth apart...

inhale....hock....eject.

He swallows it like a sacrament.

Cases where the alleged 'sub' or 'slave' says or requests "Please do X to me," and it(X) is done, are often ambiguous as to who's imposing on whom. Possibly the example you give is more a symbolic thing, symbol of power, more than serious exercize.

Spit, assuming it's yours, has the limitation that you can't 'go past' (the amount of) any request, which is a natural way a top can restore power to him or herself in meeting requests.

It's odd that 'going past' a request or beyond what's wanted is so seldom discussed in this forum. You(top) keep going or go overboard with something--past the limits wanted or specified-- so as to negate or nullify the 'request' nature of the transaction.

What say you, N, to these variations, which imo opinion are more clearly in the spirit of cruelty than concession??

1) Invite a few friends over, and when the spit issue is raised by mr. bottom, have him watch as you and these friends fill a glass with all of your spit and then hand it to him, or pour it down his throat with a funnel. Iow, generate more than he can handle.

2) Piss is an easier item to use to go past/beyond requests; by generating overflow, you truly discomfort, degrade or even nauseate the bottom who's asked. Collect one jar of your finest. When mr bottom requests-- or maybe when you feel like it--additionally get yourself into a full bladder situation. If there's a request, the following happens: he has to drink the jar first; then he has to drink from you directly. If no delay or dallying is permitted, he'll overflow and/or gag. (the latter of course should be saved for punishment purposes).

J.

 

[Kajira Callista]

Gosh, I'm having fun.

So let's see...the laugh in fictional account #1. It could have purely inflamed the child-id of the female that hates to be ridiculed, as Bridgeburner said. The reaction would then be from anger--"you hurt me, I'll show you." Regain a little control. Kajira, if I'm not mistaken, you saw that the laugh provoked an entirely different reaction: he laughed because he knew she wanted it, and she was a little afraid because she knew she wanted it too; more, she knew that HE knew. So the spitting would have been done from fear of that desire, perhaps unwillingness to accept it. Or unwillingness to let him know she wanted it--"I don't really want this, see? This is how little I want it." (This wouldn't need to be mutually exclusive; it could hurt on the surface level of ridicule, and also on the deeper level of "but I really do want this...I wish I didn't, and I really wish he didn't know I do.") Or am I wrong and you just meant she wanted to instigate further action on his part?

I love how complex the psyche is, that we can all find different meaning behind a laugh and a wad of saliva.

I saw it as sort of him knowing....wheels turning in his head on how to get there (we all know what that grin means)... her afraid but wanting it, the spitting saying i do want it, the door is opened. And him walking through it. If that makes sense.
BTW i posted my thoughts about what i read because it was amazing to see all the different takes on one scene...felt i needed to add mine too. I like the way it made ppl think harder and look deeper also...kinda nice.

 

[bridgeburner]

Quint,

What are we tapping into? Is this spoiled child lashing out, or is it even more lizard-brain than that? Is it different when the bottom responds to sheer anger as opposed to the top?

I think that all creatures even if they're submissive have an instinct to fight back at some point and assert themselves. It may not be their strongest or most frequently felt instinct, but it doesn't go away just because 99% of the time a person prefers the submissive role.

I don't know that it's different because it's Top anger or bottom anger. I think anger only differs by intensity and cause rather than one person's anger being somehow more significant or affecting because of who he is. Is it mild annoyance because the clasp on the ball-gag is broken and you were really looking forward to it or is it extreme anger because you've been denied something you had every right to expect. I think that's just a human thing.

I mean, honestly, being a top or a sub doesn't mean you cut off any part of your identity that resembles the other. Anger isn't the sole purview of the Top and tears that of the sub, is it? How those things are dealt with and when may depend on more prescribed roles but the feelings themselves are just animal.

-B

 

[bridgeburner]

Netzach,

But I don't think I play as close to the viscerae as the rest of y'all.

I don't play these games formally at all, but I don't think I'd be comfortable playing that close to the bone, either. I don't want to really hurt someone and because of my own experiences my empathy levels are pretty high for that kind of thing.

It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye.


-B

 

[Sadie_Maso]

Sadie, you also said,
Power in being able to take every blow - above being affected, completely impenetrable. It's not so much "topping from the bottom" as "topping on the bottom", so to speak, or just a fight for the upper hand with no winners.

That's not a bad way of putting it. ## Pure and simple, it IS topping, according to one common definition--'running the show.' The 'top' is the one 'running the show' or controlling what happens, or having his/her desires (primarily) met, depending on how you want to put it.

In the accounts of Sade's activities, he asks for whipping with metal tipped lashes, etc. Or to be anally taken. The point is to endure, and come. As you say, there's no pretense of actual bottoming (submitting to another's control or desires), it's just that the 'bottom' is the physical position assumed.

I don’t think it is pure topping, or pure bottoming. In Sade’s case, it is most definitely a case of “topping” in the sense that he directed the action on both the physical and the emotional plane. One could conceivably “bottom” in the physical sense, not directing the action at all - getting your kicks indirectly by satisfying the top physically - and top in the emotional sense I was describing. The emotional sense is determined by factors completely outside sexuality - who needs it more, and who understands that need more.

Quint’s fictional scenario seems to me to be the humiliation of a desire for power being exposed. The top understands the provocation. Any action done for the reaction (the spitting) is null, because of this. I like Rosco’s term “psychic chess” (it’s actually one I’ve used before, with slight variation). There’s always a way to frustrate the bids for power I talked about before, and that sounds really hot to me, but I’ve never found someone who’s completely able to do it. It’s hard for men to compete with female intuition (as sexist as that sounds).

Thanks for the welcome, by the way - I always enjoyed reading Rosco's thread but was a bit intimidated to participate.

 

[Pure]

bb said,

//I don't want to really hurt someone //

but you do like to watch!

//It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye//

i hope it's clear to all on this thread that, as 'cruelty' is being envisioned and imagined, it's not necessarily linked with certain crass, extreme 'real life' events of great physical violence. its refinement is everything!

in physical r.l. terms, as said above, a simple 'harmless' act of spitting can be freighted with all kinds of id impulses

J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

i hope it's clear to all on this thread that, as 'cruelty' is being envisioned and imagined, it's not necessarily linked with certain crass, extreme 'real life' events of great physical violence. it's refinement is everything!

J.

Yes refinement can be everything, but doesn't refinement hint at some form of self control? Some have mentioned uncontrollable rage/violence allowed to be acted out without knowing it's origin or seeking to control it's manifestation. I'm not sure that fits with refinement IMO or understanding.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

I didn't see any C:"uncontrollable rage/violence" in Quint's story under discussion, and even less in the r.l. scene she narrated subsequently.

 

[Quint]

I don't know that it's different because it's Top anger or bottom anger. I think anger only differs by intensity and cause rather than one person's anger being somehow more significant or affecting because of who he is. Is it mild annoyance because the clasp on the ball-gag is broken and you were really looking forward to it or is it extreme anger because you've been denied something you had every right to expect. I think that's just a human thing.

I mean, honestly, being a top or a sub doesn't mean you cut off any part of your identity that resembles the other. Anger isn't the sole purview of the Top and tears that of the sub, is it? How those things are dealt with and when may depend on more prescribed roles but the feelings themselves are just animal.

-B

I don't think I asked my question very clearly the first time around. I didn't mean to imply that one role's anger was somehow more valid than the other or that one's role prescribes the "sort" of anger one is permitted to feel; I really did intend to get into those different causes. Like I said in the previous post, people have taken one action--that of the bottom spitting into the Top's face--and given it several different motivations. I'm just interested in comparing the causes that explain what may be a single effect.

Certainly lots of those could be the same, regardless of role. Being made to feel genuinely stupid or inadequate hurts; I know there are some submissives for whom this is regular and acceptable practice, but daresay that for the majority of people, that sort of ridicule will get the same reaction. (Now, whether in a "typical" BDSM relationship, the submissive would be permitted to react in the same way that the Dominant would is a whole nother story.) Violation of trust is another one, I think--creates parallel if not identical feelings of disappointment and anger.

In fact, in early stages of our relationship, T got angry with me when I knew that he wanted to hurt me in EXACTLY the same way that the fictionalized female did in my story. He didn't want to want that sort of thing; he didn't want me to know about it. So what was very much a bottom's anger in the story runs right alongside a Top's anger in real life. (I'd argue that the core reason either way is lack of self-honesty and self-acceptance, but I don't want this thread to get mired down too soon in psychological babble. Much more fun til then.)

 

[bridgeburner]

Sadie,

One of the issues I've had with conventional BDSM is that it often doesn't account for these kinds of things in the idea of "power exchange". I've come to realize recently that while I'm strongly sexually submissive, in one sense I use that to gain power, as an act of emotional domination. There is a power trip involved in being able to incite anger in another individual (the old abuse cliche of "he hits me because he cares"). Power in being able to take every blow - above being affected, completely impenetrable. It's not so much "topping from the bottom" as "topping on the bottom", so to speak, or just a fight for the upper hand with no winners.

I have to really dislike someone or have a grudge against him in order to want to cause frustration and anger. Generally I want to please and make people feel comfortable. It's been my role since I was a child so I couldn't tell you now whether it's a natural inclination or that I've just been doing it so long I don't know how not to.

That being said, there is power in being able to enrage another person. The only way to counter that power is to ignore the provocation and not be enraged ---- or at least not to show it. I like your phrase of "topping on the bottom" but what it brings to mind for me is a situation in which one doesn't feel safe ---which is fine and dandy for some but not necessarily something I'd want to engage in with a serious lover.

I want a certain amount of safety there because I don't want to end up shutting too much of myself off in order to protect it.



-B

 

[bridgeburner]

Pure,

Well, yes, I do like to watch but there's a certain detachment required if I'm going to find it sexy. If I'm invested in the emotions of the person sufferring then I'm liable to be turned off --- it's too close to me. When I fantasize about such scenarios the victim is barely a real person --- when it gets real I'm not aroused.

It's hard for me to pin down what makes something too real for me to enjoy as a sexual fantasy. Anne Sebold's account of her rape in Lucky wasn't arousing at all. It was sad and horrific, but not sexy. It's not the fact that it was a real life happening as opposed to a fictional account that makes the real difference, though. It's something about the way things are presented. I've read fictional rapes that were horrific rather than arousing and I've read supposedly real accounts that were arousing rather than horrific. It's all in the way it's presented and whether or not I feel empathy for the victim.

As for the somebody losing an eye bit, I meant it figuratively rather than literally. Psychic or emotional wounds as opposed to physical wounds. The heart hurts more and I think we're often less careful with it because the damage isn't visible. It's easy to see that you've drawn blood when you're whipping someone but we draw blood with our loved ones all the time and might never know unless they tell us. Some people are more intuitive about it than others, but everyone can be hurt or inflict hurt.


-B

 

[Sadie_Maso]

I have to really dislike someone or have a grudge against him in order to want to cause frustration and anger. Generally I want to please and make people feel comfortable. It's been my role since I was a child so I couldn't tell you now whether it's a natural inclination or that I've just been doing it so long I don't know how not to.

That being said, there is power in being able to enrage another person. The only way to counter that power is to ignore the provocation and not be enraged ---- or at least not to show it. I like your phrase of "topping on the bottom" but what it brings to mind for me is a situation in which one doesn't feel safe ---which is fine and dandy for some but not necessarily something I'd want to engage in with a serious lover.

I want a certain amount of safety there because I don't want to end up shutting too much of myself off in order to protect it.

I should probably clarify - The situations where I’ve enjoyed this have always been situations where I had a certain degree of dislike for the other. The only reason I’d want to dominate someone emotionally is because of anger towards them. I couldn’t envision it working in a serious relationship, either - it requires being on constant guard. I don’t have that kind of endurance. It’s fun occassionally though - and has had me re-examining the ideas I used to have about my “submission”.

 

[bridgeburner]

Quint,

I agree with you about what kinds of things are guaranteed to hurt and possibly provoke a rage response. Sorry if I misunderstood earlier --- I didn't think you were implying a more validated anger on the part of one person or another, but obviously I didn't explain it too well, either. I'm not clear on what would be the difference between Top rage and bottom rage.


-B

 

[NemoAlia]

but there's a certain detachment required if I'm going to find it sexy. . . .When I fantasize about such scenarios the victim is barely a real person --- when it gets real I'm not aroused.

Have you read Scott McCloud's book Understanding Comics? He spends several pages in the book discussing the difference between, say, the art of Charles Schultz and the art of Rembrandt -- and what makes Peanuts generally more accessible. He hypothesizes that the more blank spaces are in a comic strip character's face = the more we can fill in the details to match our own. When a character's face carries its own details, we are forced to recognize their uniqueness and their separateness from us.

My thought is that in sexual fantasy, as in comics, people prefer their characters to be relatively blank. And not necessarily because we want to imagine ourselves in their shoes, though I'm sure that's part of it for some of us. Rather, I think we prefer not to see our fantasy characters as real other people because once they exist outside of ourselves, we automatically start applying our morality and our values to them. We feel pity and sympathy and stuff in a way that we're not obliged to feel if the characters remain completely in our own imaginations and carry only our own characteristics.

I know I, for one, remain relatively amoral in my own head -- no matter how I act toward the rest of the world.

 

[bridgeburner]

Sadie,

I should probably clarify - The situations where I’ve enjoyed this have always been situations where I had a certain degree of dislike for the other. The only reason I’d want to dominate someone emotionally is because of anger towards them. I couldn’t envision it working in a serious relationship, either - it requires being on constant guard. I don’t have that kind of endurance. It’s fun occassionally though - and has had me re-examining the ideas I used to have about my “submission”.

This I can whole-heartedly identify with, although I don't know that it necessarily would mitigate submission for me. I don't think you have to sub to all or even most people you meet in order to be a sub although it just occurred to me that my standards for tops are a little higher.

hmmm....I've just run my brain into itself and must ponder more before I post.

Okay, it's purely personal not a rule that I advocate for defining all tops. I find certain people naturally dominant. They tend to be rare for me but I think that's purely subjective and depends on my own personality. I've known people who were Top identified that I wouldn't be able to imagine topping me without laughing --- IOW they could only top me if I let them. I've also met people who would only have to look at me the wrong way and I'd roll before I knew what happened.

The first kind of person I often feel contempt for. The second kind of person scares the shit out of me but is also viscerally attractive. There are all kinds of other people in between, though and that gets trickier.

-B

 

[evesdream]

.. I'm not clear on what would be the difference between Top rage and bottom rage.


-B

hm, I was a little bit puzzled by what that meant too. Quint? I think the most obvious difference might simply be the way that a Top and a Bottom express fairly similar passions and empathies.

One of the other differences as rosco mentioned i think, is that the Top really wants to win, and the Bottom enjoys that outcome too. It makes me wonder just how much of a Bottom's experience is based on vicarious pleasure, or vicarious other feelings.

 

[bridgeburner]

Nemo,

That's really interesting. I can see how it would apply to self-generated fantasies and it makes sense. What's harder for me is reading or watching such scenarios and determining what makes some of them sexy and others horrifying.

I've always had a tendre for sexploitation films and they certainly are prone to a cartoonishness that would engender the right detachment. I'm trying to think of a more mainstream film -- legit film -- where rape is portrayed in a sexy way as opposed to a horrifying way, but nothing comes to mind right off the bat.

It's even harder for me to define in written fiction. Sometimes it hits me in the gut and sometimes it gets me hot.

I know I, for one, remain relatively amoral in my own head -- no matter how I act toward the rest of the world.

I do and I don't. There are things that are guaranteed to stoke the fires of my righteous indignation and sense of justice, but at the same time I can imagine being not much bothered by some pretty serious things like murder. I've wondered what it would be like to be in love with a killer --- mafia or hired professional killer not just a one-off who got pissed off and shot somebody. I can imagine a situation in which I would do nothing to endanger him or would likely actively protect him.

My brother and I were talking a couple weeks ago about a conversation he had with his wife. They're newlyweds and prone to odd discussions about "what if". She asked him if she killed somebody whether he'd help her dispose of the body. He said he wouldn't turn her in but he wouldn't help her get rid of the stiff. I told him to let her know that she should call me instead ---- unless it was him that she killed.

We played a similar game with our mother when we were kids "Mom, if I turned out to be an axe murderer, would you turn me in?" My mother's answer was yes, she would --- for your own good. I was always offended by this and told my brother than he should leave Mom out of it if he decided to be a serial killer and come to me for help instead. God only knows who I'd turn to. Maybe my sister in law.

So, on the one hand I'm well aware that it's wrong to kill people --- even people I don't like --- but as it relates purely to myself and my loved ones I'm not much of a moral stickler. My people are my people. At root, I don't believe in moral absolutism. There's only my opinions and others' opinions. Which is not to say I'd prefer anarchy, just that I realize how subjective morality is.

-B

 

[bridgeburner]

Evesdream,

One of the other differences as rosco mentioned i think, is that the Top really wants to win, and the Bottom enjoys that outcome too. It makes me wonder just how much of a Bottom's experience is based on vicarious pleasure, or vicarious other feelings.

If the Top enjoys winning and the bottom enjoys it when the Top wins, haven't they both won? This doesn't bother me, but I think Pure has touched on this before-- that if the sub gets what the sub wants then there's no real submission. (apologies to Pure if I've misstated this!)

I don't have a problem with both parties ending up satisfied and still being able to claim their Top or bottom status. I don't think it negates submission just because the sub enjoys it or is satisfied. I wonder if maybe the positions can be defined by how each goes about getting what he wants regardless of who desires what.

Tops act, bottoms react. Topping from the bottom is when a sub acts to provoke a particular response. Topping on the bottom is when a sub refuses to react.

Notice how nobody ever talks about bottoming from the Top? I can't even imagine how it might be done.

-B

 

[catalina_francisco]

I didn't see any C:"uncontrollable rage/violence" in Quint's story under discussion, and even less in the r.l. scene she narrated subsequently.

Interesting you would choose to say Quint did not say anything of which I referred to when I didn't mention any names, just that out of control and unexplainable violent behaviour was spoken of in the thread, which if I understand you say isn't in the thread. Why choose Q then if it isn't here and many have posted? Just curious in case I missed something which admittedly is quite possible as I have been skimming.

C

 

[bridgeburner]

Hiya Catalina,

I may have been one of the un-named rage-mongers -- I certainly have plenty to spare. I got the impression that Pure was just pointing out that having rage and fantasizing about rage doesn't mean one is necessarily going to perpetrate acts of rage IRL. I could be wrong, however.

For myself, it's happened on occasion. When I was a kid I lost it and jumped another kid. It was really pretty pathetic since he was twice my size, three years older than me and only minimally responsible for my anger --- he was the straw, I was the camel. There were another two or three incidents all before I was 15 but since then I've never physically attacked another person out of rage. I've certainly wanted to, but I've got a better handle on myself now than I did then.

Yelling matches are also fairly rare. Most common is that I wait until I'm alone and then yell and throw things to vent. I am NOT pleasant company in such a headspace, but I know it and I also know when I'm being unreasonable. Harder for me to get a fix on when I'm justified so I tend to overcompensate in the other direction, but again, I know when I'm pissed and should not be around other people and I have to date not been in a situation where I could not "maintain" until a more appropriate time and place for venting.


-B

 

[Quint]

hm, I was a little bit puzzled by what that meant too. Quint? I think the most obvious difference might simply be the way that a Top and a Bottom express fairly similar passions and empathies.

One of the other differences as rosco mentioned i think, is that the Top really wants to win, and the Bottom enjoys that outcome too. It makes me wonder just how much of a Bottom's experience is based on vicarious pleasure, or vicarious other feelings.

I'll give this more serious thought, but I wanted to bounce it off of T first and see what he thought.

Me: What's the difference between your rage and mine, as defined by our sexual roles?
T: Mine's okay. Yours isn't.

 

[Pure]

Q: Me: What's the difference between your rage and mine, as defined by our sexual roles?

T: Mine's okay. Yours isn't.

I wonder if T would accept this add on:

"... which is not to say yours won't happen, but if and when it does, it's grist for the mill {=you're fair game)."

 

[Pure]

Three 'takes' on a situation:

RR:I've noticed this phenomenon many a time [sub provoking, thus attempting to control]. With these sorts of people one generally gets bogged down in long games of psychic chess; which is sometimes rewarding. I like struggling for the emotional upper hand; but I like to win in the end.

This is the agonistic view.

eve:One of the other differences as rosco mentioned i think, is that the Top really wants to win, and the Bottom enjoys that outcome too. It makes me wonder just how much of a Bottom's experience is based on vicarious pleasure, or vicarious other feelings.

History repeats, eve: Freud said the maso enjoyment is partly from putting herself (mentally) in the sadists position.
Your terminology is precise. the bottom "enjoys that outcome"-- which is not to say 'works for it.' Compare: I used to play chess with a real expert. When he beat me, it was kind of a kick, since it was so well done. But I had to resist, to do my best, else their would be no enjoyment (i'd be throwing in the towel, instead of getting trounced).

bb:If the Top enjoys winning and the bottom enjoys it when the Top wins, haven't they both won?

no

This doesn't bother me, but I think Pure has touched on this before-- that if the sub gets what the sub wants then there's no real submission. (apologies to Pure if I've misstated this!)

The one who's fufilling his/her will or desires over and above the other's is 'topping', or in the strict sense (but not common sense on this forum) dominating. The conventional and self-said 'sub' in many cases is topping, hence such terms as 'sub princess.'

Or course neither may be imposing his/her will. There there is no topping. The case of suggestion: "Let's go to the movies." "It's okay by me."

I don't have a problem with both parties ending up satisfied and still being able to claim their Top or bottom status. I don't think it negates submission just because the sub enjoys it or is satisfied. I wonder if maybe the positions can be defined by how each goes about getting what he wants regardless of who desires what.

There's a subtle point here: the bottom cannot be directly working for 'satisfaction' or for the outcome. It must come in spite of his or her best efforts. That's I think what eve is alluding to in using the word 'enjoy' (as opposed to 'bring about' or 'obtain').

In the chess example, if I were to 'try' or 'work' to lose to my expert friend, and thereby secure his winning, then I'm not really losing, I'm throwing the game. And that wouldn't satisfy me at all. The outcome that 'satisfies' me must be there (happen), *despite* me. (Which means there must be full effort on my part, and hence desire to win.) There must be the agon, the contest.

As I stated a few postings ago, a good way for the top to ensure actual overcoming (i.e, topping--what the SMACK Statement calls 'imposition') and NOT a teaparty or 'a thrown game', is to go past or beyond a particular limit. For example: Suppose a would-be 'sub' kinda finds a burning butt exciting, and says, "Spank me," and I do. Then we've just had a fun enactment, but no 'topping' (imposition).

If after tying down this 'sub' (having blanket consent) and beginning with the brush, I then switch to the flogger, and s/he starts saying 'stop' 'please', and I continue--then at that point some 'topping' is going on. In the end, that episode, in a manner of speaking, 'satisfies' the bottom (if that's what s/he is) but that's quite different from the simple spanking situation.

Hence bb, the last sentence--"I wonder...-- is liable to misreading, it's not simply a difference in 'going about' getting enjoyment. That misses the agonistic character of the situation.

bb said "Notice how nobody ever talks about bottoming from the Top?"

In fact, they have, occasionally. (maybe some refs can be posted). The simplest cases is for the 'top' to 'throw the game', i.e, either s/he makes insufficient effort to top, or arouses irrebuttable resistance. S/he sets it up so that 'losing control' of the situation occurs.

You've raised lots of good points. I hope the above does not seem unduly 'picky'.

 

[Netzach]

Pure darling....

if I give the man what he wants, albeit a fresh loogie to chow on....and this dampens the spirit of that elusive beast "dominance" because he asks for it...

how on earth does performing according to some third parties' imagined enhancements of the "dominance factor" increase same? IE. What if I don't feel like playing the piss game?

Contentious-sugary....

Moi.