Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mizhara]

Ok, Havojeh and I had a fairly long discussion the other night, and he suggested that I post here, though I admit some reluctance in doing so.

First, a little personal info which will be relevant later: I'm twenty-five, male, neither overweight nor ugly, fairly buff, and of decent intelligence. I'm also a virgin, and I never intend to have sex, get married, or even get close to either.

I will return to this point later.

What initially spawned our conversation, and thus this post, was my inquiring of Havo how anyone could enjoy the "sadism" part of BDSM, and from there expanded into a discussion as to how a person could enjoy submission/dominance, etc. I'm putting my view out here as Havo asked, and he's planning, as I understand, to post his own reply.

The sadism part... To enjoy the sight of others in pain, or the act of applying it. This includes mental discomfort, pain and even direct torture. Sadists... enjoy giving these things to others. I'm sure you knew that, but I'm clarifying in case people don't know. As to how anyone can enjoy it? It's one of the most basic urges of a human. To somehow strike, hurt or wound others to improve one's own situation, territory, safety or control. To control others through various means like fear, violence, pain and suffering. It's common-place in all human societies, merely hidden behind more or less transparent excuses.

Violent sports. Movies. Games. Car accidents. Whatever. They all drag at something within you, the violence and pain. There's fascination, desire or even mental illnesses within each and every one of us when it comes to violence and pain. Sadists are merely near one end of the scale, while also being honest and truthful about it.

Why or how? Can't tell you for sure. That it's there, and that it is a natural part of being human? That is a truth that's been with us since we violently defended our pack, or wrestled control of it from the aging alpha. Now let's see, what was next?

To me, I find the idea of dominance/submission deeply disturbing, because it seems to me to be a role play of a relationship I find deeply disturbing: namely, slave and master. I'm philosophically opposed to the idea of a person being the property or possession of another, or treating someone as such.

No. No no no no no. Do not make that mistake. Dominance/submission is NOT slave and master. It'd submissive and Dominant. Major bloody difference. I am not going to lie to you, and say there are no slaves/Masters in the lifestyle. There is. There are those who write up semi-legal slavery contracts. But they are NOT defining D/s. It's a separate fetish/lifestyle from D/s, that has similarities but is not the same. There's a saying that 'The sub is the one with the real power in the relationship', since they can just up and walk away at any time. It's wrong, since the very concept of a D/s relationship is power exchange. But it's indicative of a truth. There is no slavery in a pure D/s relationship. It's not roleplaying slavery. It's giving trust, love and control over to your partner. With the option of retracting it the very split second you realize 'Yeah, this isn't working for me at all'.

In all parts of life, there's dominance and submission. Your boss will be dominant. He will give you orders, you will follow them. If you're the boss, you're the dominant one in that relationship. In any social circle, in any circle of friends, in any community, society or whatever, there is dominance and submission. One of your friends, or you, will often take charge, or lead the pack. That's dominance. Competitive sports. Dominance of the winner. You yourself submit to laws, to society's rules, to this or that. It's submission.

A D/s relationship is the same. One is Dominant. The other submits. Even purely vanilla relationships have some of this within them. It's all about trust, and the willing submission of control to your partner. And in this, I'm not even touching upon the sexual parts of it, which in turn is an extension of these things.

Granted, role-playing such a thing is not the same as the actual relationship; nonetheless, I fail to see the attraction in such play-acting. It was explained to me that some people desire the release of putting themselves completely into the hands of another - and, again, I cannot see the attraction of doing so.

Most of my life, I have struggled for mastery of my mind and body, in whatever I put my mind to do. Whether my work, or my recreation, I have tried to control what I do, to make better and better choices. My desire to control who I am and what I do is responsible for my desire to remain celibate - I do not want to be controlled by any urge, including sexual ones.

The idea of having my choices in the hands of someone else - to belong to another human, even for fun - is alien to me. To me, the S/D role play is horrific - because you are acting out situations without choice, and the idea of being without choice is a nightmare to my mind. That it's such a personal and intimate matter makes it much worse to me.

There is choice. The sub can at any given moment safeword and gtfo, during play sessions. They can break up, like any other couple. Except in those cases of actual slave/Master relationships, or Gorean relationships (which I'll admit I find a bit distasteful myself)... It's just another relationship, with the perfectly natural tendencies put under a magnifying glass, and focused on.

And it isn't for everyone. Far from it. Your choices are your own, your tastes are your own, and it's your way that matters to you. You have chosen abstinence and control over yourself. To exert perfect control over your body and mind. That is Dominance, with your own body and urges as the submissive. And I applaud you for the discipline and mental bondage you're performing on yourself. (See how I snuck in BDSM there?) It's even a touch of masochism within you, as denying yourself these urges is naturally having a touch of self-torture. (Just a lil' touch).

I applaud your choices. And they are your own, just like every sub and Dominant on the planet make their own free choices... and are always free.

Now, I'm definitely not posting this to flame, denigrate, or hurt anyone. This is just where I'm coming from, and it wouldn't even be here without Havojeh asking. So blame him. 

Everyone's welcome here to speak their mind. In fact, it's encouraged. It would be rather one-sided and biased if there weren't those who'd speak up against our views and ways, as long as it's constructive and honest like you are being.

Thank you for speaking up like this. It's... appreciated. Now, let's see what else I may have missed...

[Mizhara]

Understand, this is rather incidental to the issues I have with s/d. This is a choice, and one that I may one day decide to change, though I don't see that happening.

That said, I would argue that, at least where I live, I'm bombarded with a fairly heavy dose of the "males think with their penises" trope, both entertainment and in actuality. It's not that I despise sex, in and of itself - I'm very attracted to some people, and am apparently attractive to them. However, I loathe the idea that I should allow myself to be swayed from rational courses of action by an irrational instinct, one which does not have my best interests in mind.

Let me stop you right there. It's not irrational. It's a genetic imperative of bringing the species forwards. It's only irrational once we humans take nature out of the equation, and manage to overpopulate and even sustain said overpopulation. Oh wait, we've already done that. Anyway, considering the sheer amount of birth control out there, it's not irrational to please yourself. To allow yourself and your partner the immense pleasures of sex. As I see it, anyway. Don't take it as 'urdoinitrong'.

The goal is not the avoidance of sex or intimacy, but to hammer my soul, as it were, mind and body, into a disciplined tool of my will. It's difficult to truly do this with other things - if I go without food or water, for example, I'll die. This is not a - from my point of view - desirable result. But sex is an innate urge that can be denied, triumphed over. If I could find a way to do without other bodily needs - sleep, food, water - I would, and I've done without them for limited times.

I don't believe that there is virtue in simple denial of wants. Christianity doesn't deny these things either, (though it does impose some restrictions) so it is not a facet of my theological beliefs. Rather, it is just my desire to make myself as free as possible, and as possessed of as much self-control as possible - to not be subject to instinct, but have my instincts subject to my will.

Is it freedom if you deny yourself the option of doing these things? Is it 'as free as possible' to not being able to do this or that because you deny yourself them? Sure, in a way, it's the freedom from your urges, if you manage to do so. It's freedom of choice. But it's not freedom to everyone. To me, freedom would be a society in which I could engage in my greatest pleasures in public, and perhaps even be applauded for doing so. This is not the case. And it's merely my freedom, since for others it could be defined as 'the freedom to walk down the street without watching me enter subspace'. All of these are personally defined freedoms, and I applaud your choice of them. They are, however, very very very personally defined, and always remember that.

Anyway, I have one concern. You mentioned going without sleep, food and so on. And I'm assuming you're also practicing chastity (as in orgasm control) over longer periods of time. There are some medical concerns here. I would recommend never experimenting with sleep, food, water and nourishment deprivation. It's dangerous, if it goes past certain limits. There are some limits in the human body, no matter how mentally disciplined you are, that can't be broken or removed. Your own health and safety should always come first. Always. Never... ever... compromise there.

And as for the abstinent bit, and avoiding sexual urges. Your prostate. Care for it. Men are constructed with orgasms as natural releases. You should at a very minimum orgasm once every two weeks in order to 'milk' the prostate, and avoid some possibly very serious health issues down the line. That time period can be increased through the use of actual milking of the prostate, but that normally requires two people and a little toy that's mostly considered a fetishist thing.

If it helps, consider it part of your self-control thing, to keep your body at it's peak performance and without health problems. Masturbating (or otherwise attaining an orgasm) at least once every two weeks is a major health benefit, helping both your blood pressure and other things. And trust me... you don't want prostate problems.

[Mizhara]

I just realized there's a copypaste that could shed some illumination on the submissive. Why it's not 'weak' or 'slavery'. It's written for submissive men by a Dominant woman, but it equally applies to submissive women. So here goes, both for submissives who may feel a bit... alienated, weak or otherwise 'less than a man/woman' because of their penchant for the submissive role in a relationship... and for those who are simply curious, or don't understand that being a submissive is indeed a position of great personal strength and power:

I feel that many of you have been wrongfully classified as weak men. You have not had any role models as you’ve walked this path. Somewhere along the line, you’ve been told that submission in a man is weak. It is my humble opinion that you are the strongest of men…

A truly submissive man is a protector, a servant, a planner, as well as a graceful reflection of his Mistress. He is conscious that his appearance is reflection of her and therefore endeavors himself to always be put together. He is a silent reflection of her strength and a supporter of her dreams and goals.

The greatest submissive men act with dignity, in fact they act with the dignity of the best butler…anticipating her needs because they know her. They know she drinks a cup of tea before bed and strive to have it waiting for her when she retires.

He strives to posses the best of manners, and what I mean by this goes way deeper that what the general society believes. He pulls out her chair every time, no matter the location. He stands when she leaves the dinner table…even when they are alone. He realizes that his manners are a reflection of his deep gratitude for her.

The greatest of submissive men are gentlemen first. They are honorable… they don’t act out in order to seek what might be an enjoyable punishment. In fact, a punishment is never enjoyable…it’s a failing to please their Mistress. And it’s never fun.
The fun comes not only from the deep service they provide, but also when they are alone…with his Mistress and a scene evolves. She knows him well and because he is indispensible to her, she will make every fantasy he has come true.

She values him tremendously. He is not less than her, but an extension of her. He is invaluable because even though he is submissive to her, he is not submissive to everyone. He serves her, and in that service comes a sense of joy and purpose. It also defines him as a man…a strong man…submissive man.

If I were to add to this, it would also be about actual BDSM play. Those that prefer to bottom can often find themselves... ashamed, after the fact. Ashamed and feel like they're weak or less than those who prefer to Top or Vanilla. (Doesn't quite apply to masochists, but it's relevant nonetheless.)

The strength and determination needed to give your Top/Dominant the power to inflict discipline, pain or otherwise, at the cost of your own enjoyment... simply because He or She would enjoy it? That's strength. That's enormous power of will, determination and trust. How many could do that, do you think? How many could endure the pain, humiliation, sensory overload and even end up crying by the end of it... then smile, happy because they pleased the Dominant? And then go back to do it all over again, later? That takes enormous strength. Enormous willpower. Enormous determination.

And a bond of trust beyond description.

[Mathra Hiede]

Mmmm.

"draws in some personal courage"

I have dabbled very slightly in D/s with someone very very close to me, however due to epic-distance issues, we only got to experiment for a short time before I had to leave.

I prefer to be on the Dominant side of the scale, but I have tried, and will do some submissive stuff - the only catch being I actually have to mentally fortify myself as being restrained (be it RP only, and even then not truly restrained) causes a fight-or-flight reaction in me, which I was learning to overcome before I had to leave   

I don't think I could cope with a 24/7 D/s relationship as it goes against my ideals, but in a bedroom or for a bit of play-fun I think it is a bit of fun and something that can and should be enjoyed.

BTW - Awesome topic Miz Iz good stuff.

[Inara Subaka]

I want to start by repeating what Miz said, Vanilla is not bad.  Vanilla is the "basis" for everything else.  You get vanilla ice-cream and you add condiments if you want (over simplified, but general idea).

Actually, Miz said a lot of what I was going to.

To me, I find the idea of dominance/submission deeply disturbing, because it seems to me to be a role play of a relationship I find deeply disturbing: namely, slave and master. I'm philosophically opposed to the idea of a person being the property or possession of another, or treating someone as such.

I recommend viewing D/s as something very different. Cogs in a machine, one is the driving force and the other is driven. The one with the 'power' decides how fast and in what direction, while the other one has the 'clutch' and can disengage whenever they feel like it.

Granted, role-playing such a thing is not the same as the actual relationship; nonetheless, I fail to see the attraction in such play-acting. It was explained to me that some people desire the release of putting themselves completely into the hands of another - and, again, I cannot see the attraction of doing so.

And you're willing to recognize that D/s doesn't peak your curiosity, so you can be more open should you ever change your opinion and decide to pursue a relationship.

Most of my life, I have struggled for mastery of my mind and body, in whatever I put my mind to do. Whether my work, or my recreation, I have tried to control what I do, to make better and better choices. My desire to control who I am and what I do is responsible for my desire to remain celibate - I do not want to be controlled by any urge, including sexual ones.

Interesting approach. I am curious, simply because I like to figure out what drives people... Why don't you control and/or focus those urges rather than completely repressing them?

The idea of having my choices in the hands of someone else - to belong to another human, even for fun - is alien to me. To me, the S/D role play is horrific - because you are acting out situations without choice, and the idea of being without choice is a nightmare to my mind. That it's such a personal and intimate matter makes it much worse to me.

It's not about belonging to someone as much as placing your trust in them. Allowing yourself to be completely at their whim, trusting they won't hurt you. It has the potential for some, to build some of the strongest emotional bonds (as long as that trust is not broken).

Again, D/s is not for everyone. But I would recommend you find out what does 'float your boat', if for no other reason than to understand yourself better.

[Inara Subaka]

All of this talk about control, choice, and freedom brings up a very interesting thing to consider... What defines 'freedom'? This question applies to many different things, but I'll be nice and keep it to the D/s topic.

Is freedom the ability to make a choice? If that is the case, there is no one that is without freedom.

Is freedom the ability to make a choice without consequences? If that's the argument, there are none that are free.

Is freedom the ability to make a choice as long as it doesn't impede on someone else's freedom? I'd say that all are free.

It's impossible to remove the ability of choice (without brainwashing, mindcontrol or Sansha implants), it's simply not possible. You can make it so that the people around you are more likely to make the choice you want by making their other choices less pleasant, but they still could make that choice.

The people around you may make certain choices distasteful, but you always have a choice.

(The above is simply referring to the D/s topic, not life in general. They are two very different topics when it comes to the ability to define 'freedom'.)

[Casiella]

"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him."

ahem

Anyway, to the point about "vanilla": I think we sometimes use that word as cultural shorthand for "lacking any flavor", which isn't actually the case. Vanilla is a particular flavor, though obviously not a particularly sharp one. But it works in many different dishes (ice cream, coffee, custard, etc.), where something spicy like cayenne works in other cases, and perhaps fewer. But when it does work, it's great.

And of course, one can express total trust in the context of a relationship in many different ways. Sounds like D/s is one way, and that's great for those folks, but I'd venture to say that a man who trusts the daily caregiving of his children (and sometimes his parents) to his wife is placing huge, and generally well-deserved, trust in her. And a woman in an old-fashioned, traditional relationship who chooses to 'stay home' and take care of the house and kids while her husband goes to work places a lot of trust in him, too.

In other words, that sort of relationship might no longer be the cultural standard in some parts of the world, and for good reasons, but that doesn't make it bad. (My wife and I seem to like it.)

[Kaleigh Doyle]

I'd dare to suggest that most vanilla (and i use the term sparingly) relationships strive for an equal balance between partners, but rarely ever achieve such an ideal state. Rather, as partners get involved they achieve a natural equilibrium with one another, assuming roles and submitting to others. You'd probably find more 55/45, 60/40, and 42/57s than actual 50/50 situations.

D/s simply takes that subconscious act and brings it to the forefront. Both partners are aware of their positions in the relationship, which I think in many way relieves some of the tension in decision making processes. Personally, I've always seen the role of a dominant as a caretaker or a mentor, using their power in the relationship as a responsibility to see to the well being of their partner...with perks.

[Louella Dougans]

vanilla is because of natural/artificial vanilla flavours. The amount of natural vanilla produced globally is very small in comparison to the amount of vanilla-flavoured produce consumed. Most is artificial vanilla flavouring, which gives a slightly different taste. Natural vanilla ice cream, you will probably know when you taste it.

I have nothing else to add to this thread at this time.

[Wanoah]

vanilla is because of natural/artificial vanilla flavours. The amount of natural vanilla produced globally is very small in comparison to the amount of vanilla-flavoured produce consumed. Most is artificial vanilla flavouring, which gives a slightly different taste. Natural vanilla ice cream, you will probably know when you taste it.

I have nothing else to add to this thread at this time.

Yeah, proper vanilla is an amazing and subtle flavour. Vanilla pods are expensive, though. :/

[Ulphus]

It's impossible to remove the ability of choice (without brainwashing, mindcontrol or Sansha implants), it's simply not possible. You can make it so that the people around you are more likely to make the choice you want by making their other choices less pleasant, but they still could make that choice.

I believe you can remove meaningful choices.

In the Sharp novels by Bernard Cornwall, I was particularly struck by some of the choices facing the camp women.

They would be "married" to a soldier, and would get food from the Regiment based on that. If their "husband" died, they needed to find a new "husband" within a day or else they didn't get fed. They had to march with the troops, carry the stuff they owned, they picked over the dead soldiers for loot to pay for food and clothes, and in one story a woman was expected to sleep with a sergeant or the sergeant would see to it that her "husband" got assigned to the most dangerous bits until they were killed. I say "husband" because unless the marriage was approved by the colonel of the regiment in advance, it didn't count as a real marriage, and when the troops were evacuated at one point, all the unofficial "wives" of soldiers got left behind to survive as best they could with the French advancing.

And women chose to be in those sorts of situations because their other choices were worse.

Choosing to starve to death or follow an army seems to me to be a sad sort of freedom of choice, and to call it that seems to me to be using the words in ways that I'm not sure I can agree with.

[Kamiko Hautala]

Holy hell, I didn't realize that there were this many EVE players into this kind of stuff.

[Havohej]

In the Sharp novels by Bernard Cornwall, I was particularly struck by some of the choices facing the camp women.

This is some of the most stomach-turningly disgusting misogynistic shit I've ever heard of... thank you for pointing out an author for me to not read.  Also, I don't believe the sort of de facto rape scenario you describe from these novels really matches the context of this discussion.  I think the point Inara was making is that there is no lack of freedom for a sub in a D/s relationship - the submission is a gift that the sub chooses to give to his or her Dom/me.

People can play at being forceful, people can play at imprisonment/bondage, people can play at physical tortures/abuses... the moment it stops being play and becomes real force, real imprisonment, real abuse, is the moment it stops being D/s and becomes assault and sexual battery.

[Inara Subaka]

Also, I don't believe the sort of de facto rape scenario you describe from these novels really matches the context of this discussion.  I think the point Inara was making is that there is no lack of freedom for a sub in a D/s relationship - the submission is a gift that the sub chooses to give to his or her Dom/me.

This is exactly what I was talking about, the points given were specific to a D/s relationship (the discussion beyond that is not for this thread and likely to cause very heated debate).

At the core, D/s is about trusting the person you're with. The s has to give the power to the D to direct things, trusting them not to harm them while in submission, and the D has to trust the s not to 'pull the rug out from under their feet' on a whim and walk away (this can utterly destroy a D emotionally). But both parties have choice at every moment.

[Ulphus]

Also, I don't believe the sort of de facto rape scenario you describe from these novels really matches the context of this discussion.  I think the point Inara was making is that there is no lack of freedom for a sub in a D/s relationship - the submission is a gift that the sub chooses to give to his or her Dom/me.

I'm sorry, that was a nonsequiter from a combination of what Inara posted, and something one of her characters said IC about always having choices, even if the choice was shackles or death.

It triggered some very strong emotions in me, but I apologise for bringing them to this thread.