Submission vs. Bottom

[Netzach]

I didn't mean to be coy, btw, I'm just pondering the responses. Of course I have a right to say whatever I want, and then he has the right to dump my ass and then I have a right...sorry, work brain took over.

I think he's clear on the whole thing. I just tend to overanalyze - there are things I want, and then I also want to make him happy and be a good partner and submissive. Sometimes we negotiate. Sometimes he vetoes. Sometimes he just looks at me like I'm nuts and says, baby, I really don't care either way.

I mean, no one's going to take away my submissive society membership card, so it's really all semantics. I just keep kicking it around in my head for some reason.

I think people are pretty hardline about things sometimes, like if you're really a sub you'll never push back or exercise the "hell to the fucking no" card.

That's what slavery's for, imo, if you want to feel like that is completely outside the confines of the relationship. I think D/s can involve extensive negotiations - the real difference between it and vanilla can shake out as the *conscious desire* for one person to defer to the other in these negotiations as an ideal, rather than a 50/50 compromise as the ideal.

 

[peterbrazen]

It seems to me

Discussing tags soon becomes a pretty pointless task which I pointed out just up there - some people do just get all huffy about how important it is what they do or what they percieve they know and how someone else is always just plain wrong.

Well, no one is wrong, everyone on this thread is 100% correct , because everyone is entitled to an opinion though you wouldn't believe it the way some carry on.

But why do people give a monkeys cuss what other people think about them? If you know who you are [my opinion] what does it matter what someone else thinks? Just don't get it myself.

I also agree with lucy . . here at Lit you are free to discuss your opinion and should not be be critiqued nor should you critique others.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if you cannot accept their opinion then you should agree to disagree.

Carry on . . . .

 

[Netzach]

should not be be critiqued nor should you critique others

That would be a rich culture of discussion.

Fortunately, free speech extends to everybody. Critique isn't censorship. Carry on indeed.

 

[rida]

OK, I love semantic discussion, talking about what we mean with what word and so on. I think that it gives an inside to how the person think and, well, if you do not agree on a vocabulary, is kind of hard to talk.

Back to the OP.

A lot of good definitions and explanations have been given.
I am also of the believe that you can define the words independently, not necessarily in pairs, when it comes to define how you are.
Of course, you need the pairing to have the relationship, and within the relationship the title define the interaction between the two (or more) person involved.

For instance, I would define myself as a submissive (with perhaps slave leanings). However in the relationship with my Hubby, I am mostly a submissive that bottoms in the bedroom (he is less internet-drive in his definitions so he would consider himself a Master, but he would better fit the definition given here of Top leaning Dominant). With the Sadist, he is indeed a Sadist Top that demand submission within the time frame of the interaction, and I am indeed a submissive leaning slave when with him.

As for the huff & puff: I think that what ruffle feathers is when the definition/explanation tries also to add an inherent "scale of value" to the words. Somehow saying that T/b is not serious can be offensive indeed to the people that are T or b and take the whole thing damn seriously.


-----------

If he says to me, this is the way it's going to be and that's final, I will listen. But if there is wiggle room, I admit I will continue to make my case.

A.B.S.O.L.U.T.E.L.Y
give me wiggle room and you have gotten yourself an argument

 

[sadangel]

I'm going to post this here, rather than on the other active thread in Talk right now about whether someone is a submissive or not.

So, where does a submissive's preferences fit in? Does the sub (not slave) have a right to express his or her preferences? I've always said yes, but to me it seems like the articulation of preferences by a submissive gets a tsk, tsk around here.

Now, I know, it only matters what my PYL thinks, and who cares what anyone else thinks, yada yada. I totally got it. I'm just curious.

Mister Man and I are figuring out the nitty gritty of moving in, and it does sometimes make me think about our power dynamic and how it plays out. I tend to be the one who overanalyzes things - he basically says, do the things you're supposed to do (cooking, sex, etc), I have final say and that's that - but I do see how going from dating to getting married/living together makes it more difficult. I mean it's one thing to make sure you cook your boyfriend the dinner he wants, and it's another to figure out how much of your budget will go to a new stove or whatever. Or whether I should see an OB or a midwife (just hypothetically).

I consider myself a submissive. Not a bottom.

I wrote the following in my blog the other day, part of what being submissive is FOR ME. I know it isn't the same for all.

I can ask for what I need. I can mention what I want. I can share my goals. What happens after that.....

So, where does a submissive's preferences fit in? Does the sub (not slave) have a right to express his or her preferences?

I think personally that a sub's preferences should fit into the relationship. The sub should have the right to express their preferences. I have some definite hard limits. I have some soft limits. I have a lot of "I am curious" limits. I haven't been able to really explore too much in RL at all. The last time was 10 years ago and very limited. We didn't even really realize we were exploring S&M. We just found out we liked spanking.

I want to know that the person who becomes or is my Dom will want to know what I need, what I want and what my goals may be. That he will be interested in what the limits are and why. Some are for my own well-being. Some are just because well....Ewwww. I want to know his too. There is a chance that what may be a hard limit at the moment for me can become a soft limit as I educate myself on different aspects of BDSM (for instance, Electrical Play...it's a hard limit, for now, but I'm learning about it more and could see it become a soft limit at some point).

In the end, I will choose to leave the final decision to the one who becomes or is my Dominate. I assume by the time it reaches that point, that I will know that I can trust him to have my well-being in mind. I want to please the Dominant and in return I know I will be pleased.

Disclaimer:These are just my thoughts and not reflective of all submissives.

 

[PalmerEldritch]

A useful guide

I have read some of the posts on the subject at hand and it is obvious that some here might get touchy about certain labels to different relationships.
Keeping that in mind I am going to paste a couple of articles below.

Here is an article reprinted from The BDSM Circle about what some would consider the four basic groups of Players and/or Lifestyles:

Types Of Players

By Pierre


BDSM is different for different people. Since their needs are different, the description of the people is different.

Some words are used to describe these different people.

Terminology will vary from groups, or even between different geographical locations. This article is here to shed some light on these description but it is up to you to see if it is appropriate for you.

In BDSM, we have four primary types of "players":

1. The one who is in control is the Top or Dominant.

For many, these two expressions mean the same thing. But in some groups, a Dominant would be someone in a Domination/submission realtionship compared to a Top who would just be the giver in a S&M scene.

2. The one who receives or is being controlled is the submissive, or the bottom.

Again, for many, those two words are interchangeble. In the same fashion, a submissive would be someone in a relationship with a Dominant compared to a bottom who is the "receiver" in a S&M scene.

It is interesting to notice that the older S&M and "Domination" books refer more to Top and Bottom. The usage of Dominant and submissive seems to be "newer".

Male Dominants are often refer to "Dom" and females as "Domme"

3. Switch:

A switch is someone who "plays" both sides of BDSM. Sometimes, they are the Top or Dominant and other times they are bottom or submissive. In some groups, switches are frowned upon and considered to be "not real". I remember a gentleman who was a Top telling Catharine that he didn't believe in the existence of switch and she was telling him: "Look at me, I am one!!!" Slave is used by some to describe a submissive or bottom but the difference between a slave and submissive is wide between groups.

Slave is used by some to describe a submissive or bottom but the difference between a slave and submissive is wide between groups.

4. Master (Mistress):

In the dictionary, master mean "the owner of slave" and BDSM'ers use it in this aspect. Some believe that a Master should only be one who is a specialist in a particular field (a Master in whips for example).

As usual, you see that there are no particular rules about the terms used in BDSM to describe players. Since people's needs of BDSM are different, and since that the same word could mean different things for different people, while talking with others, don't be surprised if you hear conflicting terms. Just politely ask the person to whom you are talking for clarification and don't jump quickly to conclusions if you are not certain


I am also going to reprint another article from The BDSM Circle about the so called degrees of submission and what the definitions are often called.

Here is that article:


D/S LIFESTYLE
THE 9 LEVELS OF SUBMISSION


The following isn't intended as a rigid classification. It was written by Diane Vera and published in The Lesbian S/M Safety Manual, edited by Pat Califia, from Lace/Alyson Press, Boston, 1988, reissued 1990 (still in print).

Within the S/M subculture, different people use the words "submissive and slave" to mean many different things. When submissives say "I want to be your slave," sometimes they mean only that they want to be tied up and whipped. Many professional dominants routinely refer to their (usually _not_ very genuinely submissive clients) as "slaves." At the other extreme, there are people who want to be full-time personal servants, and who truly want to exist solely for their Dom(me)'s use, pleasure and convenience. And there are many shades in between these two extremes.

1.THE OUTRIGHT NON-SUBMISSIVE MASOCHIST or KINKY SENSUALIST.Not into servitude, humiliation or giving up control; just pain and/or spiced-up sensuality, on the masochist's own terms and for the masochist's own direct pleasure (i.e. turned on solely/mainly by one's own bodily sensations rather than by being "used" to gratify one's partner's sadism).

2.PSEUDO-SUBMISSIVE NON-SLAVE. Not into even playing "slave," but into other "submissive" role-playing, e.g. schoolteacher scenes, infantilism, "forced" transvestism. Usually into humiliation, but NOT into servitude, even in play. Dictates the scene to a large degree.

3.PSEUDO-SUBMISSIVE PLAY SLAVE. Likes to play at being a slave; likes to feel subservient; may in some cases like to feel one is being "used" to gratify partner's sadism; may even really serve the dominant in some ways, but only on the "slave's" own terms. Dictates the scene to a large degree; often fetishistic (e.g. foot worshippers).

4.TRUE SUBMISSIVE NON-SLAVE. Really gives up control (only temporarily and within agreed-upon limits), but gets her/his main satisfaction from aspects of submission other than serving or being used by the dominant. Usually turned on by suspense, vulnerability, and/or giving up responsbility. Doesn't dictate the scene except in very general terms, but still seek mainly her/his own direct/pleasure (rather than getting one's pleasure mainly from pleasing the dominant).

5.TRUE SUBMISSIVE PLAY SLAVE. Really gives up control (though only temporarily; only during brief "scenes" and within limits) and gets main satisfaction from serving/being used by dominant-but only for FUN purposes, usually erotic. May/may not be into pain. If so, is turned on by pain indirectly, i.e. enjoys being the object of one's partner's sadism, on which the submissive places very few requirements or restrictions.

6.UNCOMMITTED SHORT-TERM BUT MORE THAN PLAY SEMI-SLAVE. Really gives up control (usually within limits); wants to serve and be used by the dominant; wants to provide practical/non erotic as well as fun/erotic services; but only when the "slave" is in the mood. May even act as a full-time slave for, say, several days at a time, but is free to quit at any time (or at the end of the agreed upon several days). May or may not have long-term relationship with one's Mistress, but, either way, the "slave" has the final say over when she will serve.

7.PART-TIME CONSENSUAL-BUT REAL SLAVE. Has an ongoing commitment to an owner/slave relationship and regards oneself as the dominant's property at all times. Wants to obey and please dom(me) in all aspects of life-practical/non erotic and fun/erotic. Devotes most of time to other commitments (e.g. job) but Dom(me) has first pick of the slave's free time.

8.FULL-TIME LIVE IN CONSENSUAL SLAVE. Within no more than a few broad limits/requirements, the slave regards herself/himself as existing solely for the Dom(me)'s pleasure/well being. Slave in turn expects to be regarded as a prized possession. Not much different from the situation of the traditional housewife, except that within the S/M world the slave's position is more likely to be fully consensual, especially of the slave is male. Within the S/M world, a full time "slave" arrangement is entered into with an explicit awareness of the magnitude carefully, with more awareness of the magnitude of power that is being given up, and hence is usually entered into much more carefully, with more awareness of the possible dangers, and with much clearer and more specific agreements than usually precede the traditional marriage.

9.CONSENSUAL TOTAL SLAVE WITH NO LIMITS. A common fantasy ideal which probably doesn't exist in real life (except in authoritarian religious cults and other situations where the "consent" is induced by brainwashing and/or social or economic pressures, and hence isn't fully consensual). A few S/M purists will insist that you aren't really a slave unless you're willing to do absolutely anything for your Dom(me), with no limits at all. I've met a few people who claimed to be no-limit slaves, but in all cases I have reason to doubt the claim.

Copyright 1984 and 1988, Diane Vera


Of course in any relationship I think there are grades and shades.
My own personal relationship is more along the lines of one as a "Daddy/Dom" and his "little girl/sub/sometime slave"..............see what I mean about shades and degrees?
I could easily get bent out of shape and say my own relationship isn't mentioned in either article, but I am not going to be, because I think you just should use things like above for a background reference, and not a set in stone group of rules.

Hope you enjoy the re-prints of the articles I have found them endlessly fascinating and interesting.

 

[intothewoods]

OK, I love semantic discussion, talking about what we mean with what word and so on. I think that it gives an inside to how the person think and, well, if you do not agree on a vocabulary, is kind of hard to talk.

Back to the OP.

A lot of good definitions and explanations have been given.
I am also of the believe that you can define the words independently, not necessarily in pairs, when it comes to define how you are.
Of course, you need the pairing to have the relationship, and within the relationship the title define the interaction between the two (or more) person involved.

For instance, I would define myself as a submissive (with perhaps slave leanings). However in the relationship with my Hubby, I am mostly a submissive that bottoms in the bedroom (he is less internet-drive in his definitions so he would consider himself a Master, but he would better fit the definition given here of Top leaning Dominant). With the Sadist, he is indeed a Sadist Top that demand submission within the time frame of the interaction, and I am indeed a submissive leaning slave when with him.

As for the huff & puff: I think that what ruffle feathers is when the definition/explanation tries also to add an inherent "scale of value" to the words. Somehow saying that T/b is not serious can be offensive indeed to the people that are T or b and take the whole thing damn seriously.


-----------


A.B.S.O.L.U.T.E.L.Y
give me wiggle room and you have gotten yourself an argument

wiggle room - I just can't help myself!

Yes, words cannot mean whatever the hell you want them to. Otherwise how do we talk to each other?

And I see what Netz is saying about T/b and the play being the thing, in a very intense way. I know a lot of non-D/s not at all in the bdsm scene couples who do some s&m in the bedroom and find it hot, rewarding, intense, and kind of a bonding experience. Like, hey, let's try this crazy thing tonight dear, huh?

Also, I have bottomed to a number of people and we did not role play. I think people who are into role playing are just into role playing, nothing to do with T/b or not.

Most of my friends in the scene do D/s more privately, and T/b more in public. Hey, we're at an event, let's use the equipment and do something crazy! That sort of thing.

 

[intothewoods]

FYI - my limits, as far as s/m play goes, are not the issue.

This is more about - literally - I really like hardwood floors but he says no because the dogs will slip. So I must shut up. But before I shut up, I did try about 10 times to change his mind.

 

[rida]

FYI - my limits, as far as s/m play goes, are not the issue.

This is more about - literally - I really like hardwood floors but he says no because the dogs will slip. So I must shut up. But before I shut up, I did try about 10 times to change his mind.

Does it snow and get frozen where you live?
If so, tell him that hardwood floor are a good way for the dog to learn to walk on slippery surfaces
(or you can buy the dog some socks with the no-slippery soles ... like they do for little kids here in Japan )

 

[intothewoods]

Does it snow and get frozen where you live?
If so, tell him that hardwood floor are a good way for the dog to learn to walk on slippery surfaces
(or you can buy the dog some socks with the no-slippery soles ... like they do for little kids here in Japan )

Shit - dog socks!!! That is genius.

 

[FantaSeaGirl]

FYI - my limits, as far as s/m play goes, are not the issue.

This is more about - literally - I really like hardwood floors but he says no because the dogs will slip. So I must shut up. But before I shut up, I did try about 10 times to change his mind.

Does it snow and get frozen where you live?
If so, tell him that hardwood floor are a good way for the dog to learn to walk on slippery surfaces
(or you can buy the dog some socks with the no-slippery soles ... like they do for little kids here in Japan )

Shit - dog socks!!! That is genius.

I have lived in ahouse with hardwood floors (the real kind to, not the laminate) and my digs were fine.. one is even a standard poodle & known to constantly have overly fluffy feet. They do not like dog socks though ... they did a really funny walk when I put them on to take them out in the snow once. Carpet is lovely and comforting, but with dogs it's a hell of a lot of work to keep very clean ( I ended up having to buy a steam cleaner), hardwood floors are much easier to sweep & mop & get back to their original state.

//: end hijack

 

[intothewoods]

I have lived in ahouse with hardwood floors (the real kind to, not the laminate) and my digs were fine.. one is even a standard poodle & known to constantly have overly fluffy feet. They do not like dog socks though ... they did a really funny walk when I put them on to take them out in the snow once. Carpet is lovely and comforting, but with dogs it's a hell of a lot of work to keep very clean ( I ended up having to buy a steam cleaner), hardwood floors are much easier to sweep & mop & get back to their original state.

//: end hijack

Lol, this thread can now become all about our remodeling issues! He has a steam cleaner. And I agree with you on the floors - we do have hardwood downstairs btw - but he is convinced. Hey, maybe I'll tempt fate and go for broke tonight.

ETA: The D is always right. The D is always right. The D is always right.

 

[rida]

ETA: The D is always right. The D is always right. The D is always right.

Nah. The D is NOT always right. He just GETS his way, whether it is right or wrong.

One of my peeves with the D being right or wrong, is not about right or wrong. I can accept the D being wrong and still wanting his way and I'll do it his wrong way. I just want the D to own up to his wanting it the wrong way.
I do not expect the D to be omniscient and omnipotent ... I just expect him to own up to his own desires, right or wrongs, and to his own fuck ups.
Not need to be apologetic; a "I want it this way, fuck it if it is selfish" is good enough for me.

I will, however remind the D that it was HIS decision, if he ever complains about the consequences of it in the future ...

 

[Netzach]

FYI - my limits, as far as s/m play goes, are not the issue.

This is more about - literally - I really like hardwood floors but he says no because the dogs will slip. So I must shut up. But before I shut up, I did try about 10 times to change his mind.

I have mostly carpet because M did the move while I was out of town on some giant prodomination sojourn in NYC. Do I like carpet? Fuck, no. He prefers carpet. He *knew* I like hardwood and the little shit still went ahead. In the battle of "is this minor thing going to ruin your day every day" I'm just a less sensitive and more flexible person. Not having carpet will make him more apeshit every day. Frankly, he's the one who vacuums, so mazel tov, vacuum, is how I felt about it.

Doesn't mean I don't like chaining him to the foot of my bed, edging him to not quite orgasm and laughing my ass off and going to sleep.

I don't see this as some great evidence that I'm not in charge enough. I think of it as evidence that I can put my control freak to sleep at least some of the time.

I really don't mind if he makes his case, carries on and lobbies heavily if it's a really big deal. Unless it's a majorly big deal to me, there's no point making law out of it. Knowing I can if I want is satisfying enough.

Because I do NOT want to wake up five years from now when I'm yet even less exciting and sexy and new and face the million and one petty resentments I wrote checks out on.

 

[Homburg]

So, where does a submissive's preferences fit in? Does the sub (not slave) have a right to express his or her preferences? I've always said yes, but to me it seems like the articulation of preferences by a submissive gets a tsk, tsk around here.

Now, I know, it only matters what my PYL thinks, and who cares what anyone else thinks, yada yada. I totally got it. I'm just curious.

For me, and this is referencing the other thread where this is being discussed, it's a soft thing where I get the feeling that I'm seeing more "No" than "Yes" and more "I want" than "You want". That is when I wonder if the person is submissive, or just has submissive-ish fantasies that they want me to work out. Or, as Netz says, they have a script.

Limits are fine and good, but when I have more limits on that checklist than tolerated activites, we have problems. I do not do a la carte unless it is a play partner thing.

--

I think people are pretty hardline about things sometimes, like if you're really a sub you'll never push back or exercise the "hell to the fucking no" card.

That's what slavery's for, imo, if you want to feel like that is completely outside the confines of the relationship. I think D/s can involve extensive negotiations - the real difference between it and vanilla can shake out as the *conscious desire* for one person to defer to the other in these negotiations as an ideal, rather than a 50/50 compromise as the ideal.

Heh, I have had a slave look me in the eye say "hell to the fucking no" (paraphrased). There was a moment or two of shock, consternation, etc, and then I realised that, yeah, slave had a point. There was a damned good reason why whatever activity was being discussed should not happen, and I'd not thought about it. *shrug* I'm not perfect.

That "no" had better have one helluva good reason though.

--

Because I do NOT want to wake up five years from now when I'm yet even less exciting and sexy and new and face the million and one petty resentments I wrote checks out on.

Solid. Fucking. Gold.

This is exactly how I look at these issues. Pettiness can be dead fun at times, but, wow, it builds up.

 

[JMohegan]

FYI - my limits, as far as s/m play goes, are not the issue.

This is more about - literally - I really like hardwood floors but he says no because the dogs will slip. So I must shut up. But before I shut up, I did try about 10 times to change his mind.

I love this example, and here's why. In my view, D/s is defined in those moments when the participants disagree or differ markedly in terms of personal preference.

If a D beats on an s, who's loving it and going "oooooh hurts so good," that's not submitting - that's just everybody having a good time. If the D says: "No pig products will ever be brought into this house," and the s is already vegetarian, has there been any deferring to anyone else? Nope.

I agree with MM on the hardwood floor/dog issue. I wouldn't mind hearing your preferences, but there's really nothing you could say to change my mind. Because I've lived with dogs for my entire life, and I know what they like & dislike.

If you managed to convince me that hardwood floors are really, really important to you personally, I might compromise and say something like: Okay, get a giant area rug for your favorite room and leave a foot or two at the perimeter; the dog won't trot across the edges anyway.

But we're talking one, maybe two conversations here. Because I really, really, REALLY despise nagging, whining, bugging, push back, and so on. When I decide, I decide. It's done.

If I sound like a control freak, well - hello - yes, and I've never pretended to be otherwise. The good news for anybody moving in with me is that the list of things I want to control this way is actually very small. Pick the family room color scheme, choose the dishes, plant your favorite flowers in the garden, arrange the stuff on the walls to suit your fancy - all this is stuff about which I simply don't care.

 

[PalmerEldritch]

If a D beats on an s, who's loving it and going "oooooh hurts so good," that's not submitting - that's just everybody having a good time. If the D says: "No pig products will ever be brought into this house," and the s is already vegetarian, has there been any deferring to anyone else? Nope.

Good point, in that some people I have a feeling don't get that in a D/s relationship, you kind of have to determine what is fun play and what is punishment.
After all as you sort of said, if your sub, slave, whatever, enjoys being spanked or caned or whipped, that really isn't punishment. This rather would fall under the umbrella of mutual fun play.
The young lady I am in a relationship asked me at the start what I might do to her as a punishment, and I said - taking in mind what I knew about what she would find unpleasant - I think in your case not speaking to you for a set time, or making you kneel facing the wall. Forcing her to not make eye contact with me, or forcing her to make eye contact with strangers.
All things that I know she finds unpleasant. Her first reaction was, "But I really wouldn't like that. I would be upset," to which I replied, "That's the point."
She thought a moment and then said to me, "Oh I see. That does make sense, I understand."
My girl you see is a pain lover, and I had to impress on her that hurting her physically just didn't sound like a "punishment" to me. Of course we have found a little something she doesn't like in the vein of physical pain, and that is nipple clamps. We agreed that they could be used as a real punishment, because - as you point out - it is found to be unpleasant by her.

On the question of diet, that actually came up with her saying she would want me to make her choices for her in that area...............but then.............it occurred to her that she being a vegetarian, and me not being one, this might not really work. The compromise was that I wouldn't force things on her she has personally decided against, but that within that group I could make her choices for her. Personally I don't care about making food choices - that's just me - but she likes the idea of being taken care of, in that she is a sub who is also a "little girl" and wants a "Daddy" figure to take care of her, in the home at least.

 

[JMohegan]

Good point, in that some people I have a feeling don't get that in a D/s relationship, you kind of have to determine what is fun play and what is punishment.

I know lots of people are into the punishment thing, but I'm not one of them.

I go beyond "hurts so good" because I'm a sadist. Not "sadist," but sadist - literally.

 

[Recidiva]

I know lots of people are into the punishment thing, but I'm not one of them.

I go beyond "hurts so good" because I'm a sadist. Not "sadist," but sadist - literally.

So quotation marks matter too?

So I should now be "Hedonistic Fluff Bunny"?

 

[JMohegan]

So quotation marks matter too?

So I should now be "Hedonistic Fluff Bunny"?

Haha - feel free to ID however you want!

I put quotes on "sadist" here to reference those people who get off in inflicting "pain," but not pain. "Pain" that the recipient appreciates isn't actual pain, in my book.

 

[PalmerEldritch]

Perhaps you should. Quotes seem to make anything better I always thought.
Is a "sadist" differant from a sadist, in that the "sadist" enjoys thinking about drowning kittens while the sadist ACTUALLY drowns 'em...............hhmmm.
This is food for futher thought, from one .............oh boy...........now I don't know if I am a "sadist" or a sadist.........however will I self identify.

 

[Netzach]

See, for me, the tipping point is the sweet spot. The moment where it's not fun anymore, but maybe it will be again in a minute and the choice is to bail or keep on. This is why I love leaving everyone a safeword and an out, because watching it not get used unless the world is about to end is really a delightful process.

H, my slave, can ask me to stop any old time. And I would likely stop without one iota of shaming or worry. It's the chains in the head that are totally interesting to me.

If I was merely in pursuit of true horrid unpleasant pain I'd send them to the dentist and play with myself at the thought.

 

[PalmerEldritch]

Haha - feel free to ID however you want!

I put quotes on "sadist" here to reference those people who get off in inflicting "pain," but not pain. "Pain" that the recipient appreciates isn't actual pain, in my book.

Haha........now my friend you have totally cleared up the quotation mark boondoggle.
In seriousness I did kind of think that is what you meant, but could not resist poking fun..........now that could be sadistic of me.

 

[FantaSeaGirl]

See, for me, the tipping point is the sweet spot. The moment where it's not fun anymore, but maybe it will be again in a minute and the choice is to bail or keep on.

If I was merely in pursuit of true horrid unpleasant pain I'd send them to the dentist and play with myself at the thought.

This just wouldn't work for me. Unless the dentist does work without any numbing before. For me, a vist to the dentist is bliss. It's not a fetish, it's just a case of looking forward to feeling like I have a clean mouth at the end of the appointment combined with the fact that I can turn my phone off quilt free for an hour & leave my child with a babysitter. It's an hour of uninterrupted, no need (or ability) to talk, time when I can just withdraw into my own little head space! Send me grocery shopping though where I may just have an anxiety attck in the middle of all those middle-class housewives who will look strangely at me & I'm miserable.

 

[JMohegan]

See, for me, the tipping point is the sweet spot. The moment where it's not fun anymore, but maybe it will be again in a minute and the choice is to bail or keep on. This is why I love leaving everyone a safeword and an out, because watching it not get used unless the world is about to end is really a delightful process.

If I was merely in pursuit of true horrid unpleasant pain I'd send them to the dentist and play with myself at the thought.

If it stays "not fun" for an appreciable length of time, then they're gonna walk. Maybe not if this happens once or twice, but as a routine matter, sustained "not fun" is not sustainable.

But there *are* D-types who stop immediately when "hurts so good" ends. Even without hearing a safeword, they're just not interested in moving beyond that point. These are the "sadists" I'm talking about.