So, Doms, is it because you are too inadequate in real life?

[Spider Rand]

Why because you don't fit and I turned your offensive wording of the question back in your face? Isn't it all just BS after all?
Your wording of the question suggests where your coming from, should not have responded to a troll.

I do wish everyone would stop calling SeanH a troll. He is an ass. Asses are often mistaken for trolls, and vice versa, but the distinction is clear. You gave a reasoned response to a rudely phrased question, and he responed with this:

That is quite possibly the biggest load of bullshit I have ever read. And I spend a lot of time in the pol threads on the GB.
Congratulations [flipv] [/flipv]

Definitely the work of an ass.

 

[Slutacus]

Damn, I can't get credit for anything.
This is the longest thread I've ever had.

OK, I think I get the nurturing thing. I'm not sure if I totally swallow it, but at least I understand the reasoning behind it. You see, I treat my partners as equals. I'm not sure that I could ever be a dom (I refuse to use upper case for that, btw). I like my women to be independent. I like them to argue with me when they disagree. Do I like looking after someone I love? Of course I do, it's part of it. The need to formalise it and take it into the bedroom is what I don't understand.

My owner liked me to argue with him when I disagreed. In fact, he often loved it. He loved my independent mind and helped me hone it. No contradition there. He just didn't like me disobeying his orders, which were never lightly given, and I felt the same way. I was quite welcome to disagree with them all the time I was following them, however. The formalization stuff is sex: it's hot to people with the kink, that's all. Uh, and the bedroom stuff is also sex, in case you haven't guessed that by now.

 

[Slutacus]

Thank you, young master of the Shire.

Now fetch me some of old man Shuddlebook's pipeweed and I will see about arranging a truce between my people and yours.

The Hobbit meets The Marquis deSade? I want to see that movie!

 

[Slutacus]

Oy, where to start.

This is me being calm and collected, I'm not mad now, and I wasn't particularly mad before.

Okay, apology accepted. I don't know where you got the idea that I don't think my shit stinks; I have erred on these boards and apologized when necessary. I have actually eaten crow on this very thread.

My comment about about flamage was intended simply as a warning shot that I will not allow this thing to turn into a pissing contest. I realize that you had not yet flamed me, I was trying to avoid further disintegration of the thread. My apologies for the lack of clarity. I was in a hurry as well as trying to concentrate in a chaotic situation. I was at the boarding area for my flight this morning.

That being said, I do not speak for this board. You said

I chose your post to pick on because it was near the end of a long barrage of similarly stupid and close minded sounding comments, not because I have any personal feelings for you one way or the other. I'm not trying to start a fight with you, I just didn't like your comment and I critiqued it..

Basically, you disagreed with what others had said before me (including me) yet you chose me to make your point.

I will not be the scapegoat for every one and every thing you disagree with. Period. You have the right to disagree with me and I will defend that right. You do not have the right to hold me responsible for everyone who holds the same opinion that I do. That is both immature and ridiculous.

Board Peeps, my apologies for the hijacking of the thread, as well as a lack of clarity that apparently started all this. I'm out of this thread. We've both apologized, and it's over.

No holding you responsible, no using you as a scapegoat. I'd only do that if it was personal between us, and like I said above, we have no history between us to invoke that sort of "familiarity." I was, however, quoting your post as generally representative of the attitude that I was critiquing and I did choose it merely because it was the last one I happened upon before I felt the urge to write seize me. All I can say is, you've earned yourself a "pass" in the next round: I'll choose someone's else to quote the next time I need a jumping-off spot to comment on...unless, of course, you write something so perfectly representative of the thing I wish to speak about that I just cannot resist....

 

[Slutacus]

Is there a secret pact against the actual exchange of ideas that I didn't know about?

Well, yeah, on most message boards there are. Ideas can be scary and threaten the status quo and so people who spout them without considering consequences and politics (a.k.a. newbies--that is one of the reason it is so nice to be a newbie, you don't have to think about all that "who am I going to deeply offend or make a dire enemy of by saying I don't like cheesecake" crap) to get attacked, at first. One a person is politically established in a social space, the anti-intellectuals find other ways to neutralize their ideas (for example, by not really listening to them). But on this board (bdsm in lit) there seems to be something a balance, given the large (and unusual!) number of geeks in the general poster population...not to mention the modship.

 

[chris9]

Wow, what a thread I missed...
Even Sir Quam appeared which totally made my day (Did I mention that I think I fell in love with him badly?).

I forgot before to answer the question of this thread :
I found the original question rude, too. I do understand not understanding about the attraction of domination.

If I understood you correctly, originally you were sort of upset because you don't get the kink of your girl-friend. Which makes the question and the way you put it understandable.
I know it's quite frustrating when the one you're with does not like the same things you do. When you try to understand their kink and don't succeed.
I'm more in your girlfriend's shoes here. And I find it quite hard to accept that 'vanilla' sex is all my boyfriend wants. It's even harder to get my head around being submissive but not submitting to what he likes.
We do play a bit at times. It's not really what I'd wish for, but it satisfies me more than the usual stuff. If you like to experiment a bit even though it's not your thing, feel free to PM me for info how we made it work somehow.

I know I'm submissive (sexually only). I know pain arouses me.
I do not understand why. It just does.

I'm certain, Sean, this won't help much. It's just impossible (at least to me and for all I read) to explain why one likes something. We can talk about how a certain thing makes us feel, how happy it makes us, how complete it makes us. Does it help towards understanding? No.

Some time ago I asked a pretty similar question about liking feet. I just don't get the whole foot worship thing. Many answered they like it, how it makes them feel. I can accept it more (before I was more 'that's stupid'), but I don't understand. Just not my kink. *shrug*

 

[Andante]

This has to be the most hypocritical, pugnacious, jingoistic bullshit I have ever read in my fucking life.

NO ONE OWNS THE FORUM.

No one has any more right to be here than anyone else. Do you think I like hearing idle flirtations and mutual ego masturbation all the fucking time? Do I throw my arms up and whine like a bitch?

No, I skim through the flowery bullshit looking for something intelligent, insightful or provocative. Sometimes I find it, often I don't.

So we have here a GOOD question asked by someone who doesn't usually post here and owes us NO special courtesy or respect that we haven't earned, and we bitch and moan like a bunch of Victorian socialites. Then, in the same thread, we tell a new poster with opinions and obvious intelligence that SHE is unwelcome.

Is there a secret pact against the actual exchange of ideas that I didn't know about?

Didn't follow the thread while the fuss took place, and to be honest I have only just skimmed it.
But as a general observation, I do find Marquis' above statement very well put! Sometimes the attitude of the 'old' Litsters and the cookie-style crap littering each and every thread seems like a very good precaution against any new (and undesired?) blood and ideas entering the boards.

 

[Red Sonja]

My owner liked me to argue with him when I disagreed. In fact, he often loved it. He loved my independent mind and helped me hone it. No contradition there. He just didn't like me disobeying his orders, which were never lightly given, and I felt the same way. I was quite welcome to disagree with them all the time I was following them, however. The formalization stuff is sex: it's hot to people with the kink, that's all. Uh, and the bedroom stuff is also sex, in case you haven't guessed that by now.

That I agree with. I know for example that my hubby values my opinion and wants it. We basically arrived at a place where along with the kinky sex, I like him being the one with the final say over things. It's kind of a first among equals sort of deal. It's not like I can't or don't deal with stuff on my own, but if there is a serious difference of opinion, I say... okay fine we'll do it your way after I've had my opportunity to be heard.

What does he get out of it? Sex on demand... whenever, whereever, which is pretty cool, he tells me. He knows that I completely trust, and respect his decisions which is also an ego boost. And I think, frankly, that the added responsibility is good for him. He strives to be worthy of that trust, and hasn't failed me yet.

I also agree with your characterization of formalization, Slutacus. I am a professional, a mother of two in middle school, and I cannot greet him kneeling naked in the foyer with his favorite cocktail when he gets home from work. That just isn't an important part of the life for us. I realize it may be for some people but it just seems artificial unless the kids are at Grandma's and we are planning on this leading to a hot night of sex.

Take what you can use, and leave the rest...

 

[Marquis]

This is kind of tangential to the warring issues at hand, but I find what Red Sonja is talking about to be pretty interesting.

I think a good Dom listens to all of their subs opinions, and takes them into consideration when making the final decision. It is the Dom's responsibility to make the best choice for both of them, so if a Dom's sub is smarter and wiser than him/her, wouldn't he/she basically end up submitting to him/her?

I've noticed a considerable increase in tranquility in my relationships when I do listen to my partners fully, but I just don't have the discipline or maturity to keep that up all the time. I feel like sometimes I gotta just tell them shut the fuck up and deal with it. Maybe I was mistaken, maybe we should've made a right, but we made a left so I want your head in this direction.

Is this wrong?

Or rather, how wrong?

 

[FurryFury]

Interesting post.

I refuse to believe that even the most BDSM-adverse don't get either submissive or dominant in the bedroom. They may be too dumb to realize it, too uptight to enjoy it or too scared to explore it, but I refuse to believe it isn't there.

I agree with this. I really believe there is a lot more power exchange going on in most relationships then most will acknowledge or admit even to themselves.

Fury

 

[chris9]

This is kind of tangential to the warring issues at hand, but I find what Red Sonja is talking about to be pretty interesting.

I think a good Dom listens to all of their subs opinions, and takes them into consideration when making the final decision. It is the Dom's responsibility to make the best choice for both of them, so if a Dom's sub is smarter and wiser than him/her, wouldn't he/she basically end up submitting to him/her?

I've noticed a considerable increase in tranquility in my relationships when I do listen to my partners fully, but I just don't have the discipline or maturity to keep that up all the time. I feel like sometimes I gotta just tell them shut the fuck up and deal with it. Maybe I was mistaken, maybe we should've made a right, but we made a left so I want your head in this direction.

Is this wrong?

Or rather, how wrong?

That's why I would not consider a 24/7 thing submitting. If it's his say in the bedroom, fine. If he screws up, fine. But it's my life and I don't trust anybody to make my mistakes. Maybe I just think I'm too smart.

On the other hand there are some decisions without right or wrong, or you'll only find out if it was right or wrong later. I'd still find it easier to deal with my own 'false' decision than anyone else's. But I can see how at those times one can give the decision to another person.

 

[FurryFury]

This is kind of tangential to the warring issues at hand, but I find what Red Sonja is talking about to be pretty interesting.

I think a good Dom listens to all of their subs opinions, and takes them into consideration when making the final decision. It is the Dom's responsibility to make the best choice for both of them, so if a Dom's sub is smarter and wiser than him/her, wouldn't he/she basically end up submitting to him/her?

I've noticed a considerable increase in tranquility in my relationships when I do listen to my partners fully, but I just don't have the discipline or maturity to keep that up all the time. I feel like sometimes I gotta just tell them shut the fuck up and deal with it. Maybe I was mistaken, maybe we should've made a right, but we made a left so I want your head in this direction.

Is this wrong?

Or rather, how wrong?

Interesting questions, is it wrong and/or how wrong is it. In my view it's not wrong because you're human. Human beings sometimes listen and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they seek out smart ways of doing things and/or the wise ways and sometimes they just DO what they want because they want. This is part of what makes interactions with humans exciting and at times magical. You never know when they will be smart, wise or just go wild and I personally love all of that in a human.

Would the Dom be submitting to the smarter wiser sub? Not in my opinion. Listening is a lovely thing, learning is fantastic, we can all learn and listen to one another, gaining so much than if we said, this person is a sub so if I listen I am not being in charge.

The final decision is still the Doms, as is the subs decision to submit. One feeds the other and it doesn't really matter in the final analysis if you are sweating out every nuance of that dance of power which both must participate in. All that really matters is how satisfied both partners are (most of the time) with what they have made and continue to make together.

Fury

 

[hobbit.]

Again, please check it out Slutacous. She never called Sean a wanker. It was a reference to HOBBIT, who is behaving like a troll and trying to get her (and various others) respective goats. She has explicitly said so in the bit I quoted above. In various internet areas such as Usenet, the term "wanker" has also come to mean "troll". For example, I've seen it used as such on alt.torture, alt. bdsm.counterculture (you may need to Google the name of that, it's close enough you should get to it. I'm not on my home system so I don't have the exact addy) as well as some of the alt sci-fi communities. If you want to get mad because she called HOBBIT a wanker, then maybe you might be right. I do agree that trolls and such do indulge in a bit of mental masturbation at the expense of others, though. Being a pain in the arse is an emotional turn on to them.

?

 

[Red Sonja]

Interesting questions, is it wrong and/or how wrong is it. In my view it's not wrong because you're human. Human beings sometimes listen and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they seek out smart ways of doing things and/or the wise ways and sometimes they just DO what they want because they want. This is part of what makes interactions with humans exciting and at times magical. You never know when they will be smart, wise or just go wild and I personally love all of that in a human.

Would the Dom be submitting to the smarter wiser sub? Not in my opinion. Listening is a lovely thing, learning is fantastic, we can all learn and listen to one another, gaining so much than if we said, this person is a sub so if I listen I am not being in charge.

The final decision is still the Doms, as is the subs decision to submit. One feeds the other and it doesn't really matter in the final analysis if you are sweating out every nuance of that dance of power which both must participate in. All that really matters is how satisfied both partners are (most of the time) with what they have made and continue to make together.

Fury

I love what you said here, Fury... It's fantastic. It isn't wrong, and so there is no degree. It is what it is.

What I've learned over time is how to accept zigging when I really think we should have zagged. I think to myself, okay... if I can't support the plan (and there have been times when I couldn't) I can still the support the man. I know, it sounds like a throwback to "stand by your man" but... it works for me.

Most of the time the zigging works out just fine, or better than my zagging idea. When it doesn't, I keep my mouth shut. What drives me nuts though, is that sometimes it isn't enough to submit to the decision and back it... no, sometimes, he wants me to buy into the whole reasoning process he used to make the decision... and that, my friends, doesn't always happen!

Is that wrong, and if so... how wrong is it?

 

[Slutacus]

Interesting post.

I refuse to believe that even the most BDSM-adverse don't get either submissive or dominant in the bedroom. They may be too dumb to realize it, too uptight to enjoy it or too scared to explore it, but I refuse to believe it isn't there.

I was thinking about this one on my way to work...going "well, on the one hand...," "well, on the other hand..." "then again..." Here's what I finally wound up with: for me, the basic act of domination in sex is penetration. Usually of a physical orifice, but also sublimated in various ways. What can be more dominating than invading another person's body with your own or with something else? The point is, one person does the invading, the other is invaded. That's how I see it, anyway, as it applies to myself.

I am not sure how dominant women-submissive men see this act when the male does the penetration, although I suspect it's rather different that what I've described above, and I would like to know..

I think the way non-bdsm-sexed people see it is in the traditional biblical sense, as "a union" or even "a union of opposites." Although nothing is really fused or merged in a sex act, the fact that it can feel so good to both people at the same time lends credence to the idea of a shared identical experience or a communion. I, too, believe that a lot of this ideation is avoidance of an awareness of the penetrative act, and its agressive aspects, but I see lots of vanilla people striving to increase the experience of union. When I come across a sex scene in a straight novel, you'll see the penetrator totally aware of his partner, working hard to vary his rhythm to bring them off at roughly the same time (usually slightly before in most love scenes) he does. And there are often flowery descriptions of how his love for her (or him) suddenly increases exponentially right at the moment of orgasm.

There's also a minority view, held by some men but far fewer women, that a heterosexual act of intercourse is not penetration but rather a man being eaten or consumed by the all-devouring womb-man. I am not sure how they hold to that view. What sort of food do you know of that pushes violently in your mouth, pulls itself out again, pushes in again, squeezes out a little bit of juice and then pulls completely out without having any of its substance dimished. (I mean, of course it diminishes, but it isn't permanently gone--it just needs a rest!) How can that be described as an act of consumption? But I do think it's representative of an archetypal fear.

 

[FurryFury]

I love what you said here, Fury... It's fantastic. It isn't wrong, and so there is no degree. It is what it is.

What I've learned over time is how to accept zigging when I really think we should have zagged. I think to myself, okay... if I can't support the plan (and there have been times when I couldn't) I can still the support the man. I know, it sounds like a throwback to "stand by your man" but... it works for me.

Most of the time the zigging works out just fine, or better than my zagging idea. When it doesn't, I keep my mouth shut. What drives me nuts though, is that sometimes it isn't enough to submit to the decision and back it... no, sometimes, he wants me to buy into the whole reasoning process he used to make the decision... and that, my friends, doesn't always happen!

Is that wrong, and if so... how wrong is it?

Again, you are not wrong or right you simply are you. From the sounds of it, you are doing great supporting his decisions even when you don't agree with them or the basis of them.

It's so very human to want to be completely understood and agreed with but being human also means from time to time two people will disagree in a way that can't be fixed. At those times to be supported anyway means a very great deal to me!

It's given me the freedom to start a business when he thought I was nuts, just after 911. To also home school the kids when they begged for it. He was and sometimes still has a primal level of fear about it though he has seen for himself that his strongest fears have not been borne out. Both of those things have been very successful and good for our lives but I would have done neither of them if I thought it would cost me our relationship. Every single time I am supported and admired by him, or surprise him with success on something he thought was insane it makes me so happy.

I support him too of course. I think it surprises him so much when I continue to love, admire and support him come what may. These are the magical miracles we can all create for each other.

Do we always agree? No, of course not. What two humans do? If you found two that did would they love each other, be even able to stand each other or would they be merely bored?

I love people. I really do, because they are so wonderfully quirky, full of foibles and though they can disappoint, each one has so much you can learn from and love. You know?

You and your Dom are so very lucky to have each other.

Fury

 

[FurryFury]

I was thinking about this one on my way to work...going "well, on the one hand...," "well, on the other hand..." "then again..." Here's what I finally wound up with: for me, the basic act of domination in sex is penetration. Usually of a physical orifice, but also sublimated in various ways. What can be more dominating than invading another person's body with your own or with something else? The point is, one person does the invading, the other is invaded. That's how I see it, anyway, as it applies to myself.

I am not sure how dominant women-submissive men see this act when the male does the penetration, although I suspect it's rather different that what I've described above, and I would like to know..

I think the way non-bdsm-sexed people see it is in the traditional biblical sense, as "a union" or even "a union of opposites." Although nothing is really fused or merged in a sex act, the fact that it can feel so good to both people at the same time lends credence to the idea of a shared identical experience or a communion. I, too, believe that a lot of this ideation is avoidance of an awareness of the penetrative act, and its agressive aspects, but I see lots of vanilla people striving to increase the experience of union. When I come across a sex scene in a straight novel, you'll see the penetrator totally aware of his partner, working hard to vary his rhythm to bring them off at roughly the same time (usually slightly before in most love scenes) he does. And there are often flowery descriptions of how his love for her (or him) suddenly increases exponentially right at the moment of orgasm.

There's also a minority view, held by some men but far fewer women, that a heterosexual act of intercourse is not penetration but rather a man being eaten or consumed by the all-devouring womb-man. I am not sure how they hold to that view. What sort of food do you know of that pushes violently in your mouth, pulls itself out again, pushes in again, squeezes out a little bit of juice and then pulls completely out without having any of its substance dimished. (I mean, of course it diminishes, but it isn't permanently gone--it just needs a rest!) How can that be described as an act of consumption? But I do think it's representative of an archetypal fear.

I don't see submission as penetration at all.

I see it more as a power exchange that is where the hot stuff is for me.

Now don't get me wrong I will penetrate or get penetrated and enjoy every second but that is not the end all be all of BDSM for me. Hell I was getting penetrated all the damn time when my sex life was all 'nilla but that sizzle of power flowing between us? That, I rarely felt or at least recognized and that is the it thing for me.

As for the fear of being consumed, I can understand that some would have that. I can think of some immersion therapies to help their poor souls cope. *giggles*

Fury

 

[Roentgon]

Too Inadequate? Real Life?

I think you need to work youself down a tad lower on the old brain stem somehow or other if you're going to have any real fun at all.

 

[Marquis]

I was thinking about this one on my way to work...going "well, on the one hand...," "well, on the other hand..." "then again..." Here's what I finally wound up with: for me, the basic act of domination in sex is penetration. Usually of a physical orifice, but also sublimated in various ways. What can be more dominating than invading another person's body with your own or with something else? The point is, one person does the invading, the other is invaded. That's how I see it, anyway, as it applies to myself.

I am not sure how dominant women-submissive men see this act when the male does the penetration, although I suspect it's rather different that what I've described above, and I would like to know..

I think the way non-bdsm-sexed people see it is in the traditional biblical sense, as "a union" or even "a union of opposites." Although nothing is really fused or merged in a sex act, the fact that it can feel so good to both people at the same time lends credence to the idea of a shared identical experience or a communion. I, too, believe that a lot of this ideation is avoidance of an awareness of the penetrative act, and its agressive aspects, but I see lots of vanilla people striving to increase the experience of union. When I come across a sex scene in a straight novel, you'll see the penetrator totally aware of his partner, working hard to vary his rhythm to bring them off at roughly the same time (usually slightly before in most love scenes) he does. And there are often flowery descriptions of how his love for her (or him) suddenly increases exponentially right at the moment of orgasm.

There's also a minority view, held by some men but far fewer women, that a heterosexual act of intercourse is not penetration but rather a man being eaten or consumed by the all-devouring womb-man. I am not sure how they hold to that view. What sort of food do you know of that pushes violently in your mouth, pulls itself out again, pushes in again, squeezes out a little bit of juice and then pulls completely out without having any of its substance dimished. (I mean, of course it diminishes, but it isn't permanently gone--it just needs a rest!) How can that be described as an act of consumption? But I do think it's representative of an archetypal fear.

I've always said the same about penetration. No matter how you slice it, someone is fucking and someone is getting fucked. As for the carnivorous vagina theory, I'm reminded of the old joke

a pussy's like a wound that will never heal
but the more ointment you put in it, the better it feel

That's the beauty of D/s, ying-yang and all that... it's both. The desire to be occupied is as strong as the desire to invade.

 

[Slutacus]

I can think of some immersion therapies to help their poor souls cope. *giggles*

Fury

LOL, Do tell!

 

[Slutacus]

The desire to be occupied is as strong as the desire to invade.

Indeed. I make a kink distinction, however, between those whose lust expresses itself with happy cries of "Occupy me! Occupy me!" and those who prefer non-consensual occupation (or, "Occupy me when I don't want to be occupied!") I'm strongly in the second category; the first doesn't meet my needs.

 

[Netzach]

I am not sure how dominant women-submissive men see this act when the male does the penetration, although I suspect it's rather different that what I've described above, and I would like to know..

Well you know the whole vagina dentata thing? There's another metaphor for domination and power and it's consumption.

So if I have my dick restrained fully, (and this can be as much mental bondage as anything else, right?) and I ease myself up onto it and have one hand at his neck, do you think his body gets soft and pliable and oooo yes take me except for that one relevant part? You'd better believe it. Likewise lying there and making someone service you really doesn't strike me as the essence of submission. Watching a guy huff and puff and strain and work to fuck like a bunny while I can just luxuriate doesn't seem especially submissive. And if I don't want to lie there and luxuriate, he can consider himself fucking lucky.

Everything looks like a nail when you've only been exposed to a hammer and you think it's got to be the most useful tool in the universe. I've never had conceptual problems seeing being penetrated as submissive act, but how someone could be penetrated without being submissive seems to blow the minds of the masses.

Do you think any man who likes ass-play is submissive?

 

[Netzach]

Someone is fucking and someone is getting fucked.

Yeah that's usually about right. Can a person be preadatory and in control about "getting fucked" though.

Come on, you've been to gay bars. You know the answer to this.

 

[Netzach]

What sort of food do you know of that pushes violently in your mouth, pulls itself out again, pushes in again, squeezes out a little bit of juice and then pulls completely out without having any of its substance dimished. (I mean, of course it diminishes, but it isn't permanently gone--it just needs a rest!) How can that be described as an act of consumption?

You're being way too literal.

Any food that I especially enjoy licking. Choclolate when no one's around.

 

[Marquis]

Yeah that's usually about right. Can a person be preadatory and in control about "getting fucked" though.

Oh yes, in fact they usually are! If they weren't maintaining control would be a piece of cake.

Come on, you've been to gay bars. You know the answer to this.

Who.... me? Never!