Jon Jacobs, Power Exchange, and Superiority Complexes
3r...@pinn.net
A lot of great criticism of Jon Jacob's idea that he knows all concerning
BDSM.
I would have to agree with Kris Asber. One great problem with this whole
group is that so many think their particular idea of BDSM is "the way."
Actually, it is whatever two or more people decide it to be at that
particular scene or scenes in the future. "Whether it's a kinky form of
swinging" as Jacobs thinks some see SMBD is truly irrelevant except to
people who believe like Jacobs. That's fine, or would we have politically
correct thought police here who say, "Well, if it isn't legitimate power
exchange, then it must be a kinky kind of swinging."
Claudia Marie
>In <3d1q30$2...@crl4.crl.com> jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) writes:
>> kris@agora.r (Kris Asber) writes:
> [much deleted]
>>>Jon, you're so blinded by your way of doing things that you can't see
>>>that it's not for everyone, and that it's not the only way. [...]
>>
>>I am not the one who is blinded, son.
>Am I imagining things, or is Kris a woman?
It could be some rhetorical device I'm not quite getting.
Jon called me Junior, which I've never heard used to address
a woman either.
Sea-Marie
Alan Smith
>What is real BDSM? Real BDSM is what goes on at one of my "playparties".
If you're saying what I hope you're saying, you may want to rephrase that.
If you meant what you said word for word, you're worse than he is.
>You do at times seem very intolerant to what should be your BDSM "family"
I, personally don't feel any more inclined to like someone just 'cause of
some allegiance to four letters than I do for fellow young biologists, or
fellow followers of the Rockies (which I don't do very well) or fellow
people-with-all-their-wisdom-teeth. I start off liking them because that's
who I am, and try to keep my revisions of my opinion of them to their actions.
Big Al. "Alan, why do cats sleep so much?" "Because they can. Same reason
why a dog licks it's balls." -- My sister and I.
Fred Morris
--
Fred Morris black & gray & navy blue all over!
m3...@halcyon.com
ObS&M: synchronized TENs jumping!!! wheeee!
Fred Morris
> Suffice it to say that I have
> said clearly over and over again that there are no doubt a few people who
> believe that they are interested only in sadism and masochism who are
> correct and not fooling themselves, although our and everyone else's
> research suggests that this is not a large group. I have also said and
> say again that many people who believe this about themselves are fooling
> themselves, unwilling to face the emotional and other implications of
> being interested in power exchange. If you are one of the first group,
> good luck to you. If you are one of the second group, then, yes, you are
> screwing up your life--to the extent that anyone screws up his or her
> life by fooling him- or herself about something emotionally important.
The question that Jon can't answer is: is a.s.b. representative of the rest
of his population?
> I am not the one who is blinded, son. You have to understand that
> someone's view of themselves and of what they are not doing is not the
> last word on the matter. I have no idea about you in particular, but I
> do know that many, many people who believe as you do are fooling
> themselves. Whenever I say that sort of thing, some people go catatonic,
> others o up like a rocket, but there it is.
So, let me see... many people are fooling themselves... Is that like "many
people have cancer and don't know it", or "your home is not fully protected
without burglar alarm monitoring", or "people feel unsafe -- of course
there's more crime"? Hmmm... yeah. he's right.
BAWHAWHAWHAW!
--
Fred Morris
m3...@halcyon.com
jen kilmer
In <3d1q30$2...@crl4.crl.com> jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) writes:
> kris@agora.r (Kris Asber) writes:
[much deleted]
>>Jon, you're so blinded by your way of doing things that you can't see
>>that it's not for everyone, and that it's not the only way. [...]
>
>I am not the one who is blinded, son.
Am I imagining things, or is Kris a woman?
-jen
--
jen kilmer je...@ix.netcom.com
"Forgiveness doesn't come with a debt" Mary-Chapin Carpenter
Laurelie
Rosie wrote a very interesting post that I would like to address. . .
not to dispute with her personal observations, but to add another
"spin" if you will based on my own experiences, feelings and uses
for safewords.
Rosie wrote:
> I have a hard time seeing a scene where a sub has a safeword as a
> power exchange, because the sub isn't really ever helpless: the
> scene could end at any minute at the sub's whim, not your whim.
> The sub has the ultimate veto--the ultimate control.
I guess that I feel if you are in a consensual agreement, the sub always has
the ultimate veto or control because they can, as Cassi said, simply
say goodbye.
But if I bought Rosie's reasoning, I would have to conclude that Rage and
I never had a power exchange except for the few times we had a suspended
safeword scene. While those non-safeword experiences were intense,
they did not produce a different headspace or feel of helplessness than
any other time we've ever played. In fact, the most helpless feeling
and deepest scenes we've ever done have all been with safewords. (FWIW, Rage
and I are almost always "in scene" as it were, because we consider ourselves
to be lifestyle. . .however, I don't have a better vocabulary to describe
those times in our lives when we are most intensely behaving as dominant and
submissive except for the words "playing" or "scening.")
Really, the only difference was that non-safeword scenes helped me to
get past a point that my mind wasn't strong enough to get past on it's
own. To explain: Rage and I do not use safewords for when I don't like
something. A safeword for pain may only be used when I feel I cannot
bear it any longer. A safeword for anything else may only be used after a
good faith evaluation on my part that there is something really wrong
that Rage doesn't know about. Indeed, Rage has safewords too. . .and
often uses them in dom space. Like last night, he noticed that I seemed a
little distant in scene and asked me what I was feeling. I answered
"Stress." Rage replied, "Red." and got off of me. He wanted to stop the
scene in order to find out what was going through my head in a non-masterly
fashion.
Neither of us really use/consider safewords as
devices for control. Instead we use them as devices for communication.
When we gave up safewords for pain scenes it was because I could not,
in good faith, use safeword only when something was going
really wrong. Under the influence of pain, I couldn't keep my commitment
to my master. I would safeword because I didn't like the pain. Rage
and I gave up the safewords in those scenes so that I could get past
my own self and give him the power. In other situations though, I *do*
get past my own self.
In the absence of pain, safewords have been for
emotional conditions or physical conditions, the severity of which
Rage could not have been aware of without the safeword. Those situations
include: guilt (this is the biggest one), flashbacks, nausea,
hyperventilation, etc. Rage says that there are some situations which
require me to make the final judgement because he cannot be a proficient
judge of what is going on inside my head and the effects of him
"getting it wrong" in those situations is a lot more severe than in
spanking me too many times. In one case, I get bruises, in another I end
up in mental ward or a hospital. Rage says that my safewords are really
*for him* more than they are *for me*.
> I'm in a long-term master-slave relationship, and I live with no
> power over anything at any time, the scene never ends, and it's
> made me rather spoiled, I'm afraid. I so love the thrill of
> helplessness that I would find a situation in which I had to use a
> safeword boring as heck (and I'd probably use it way too
> early--I'm something of a wimp when given a choice--g).
I saw Cassie remark that perhaps you felt this helpless because you
have agreed not to leave your master and that you would not break this
promise. I see that as a total power exchange if, indeed, you are
incapable of breaking such a promise. I don't know that a power
exchange has to be *total* to be genuine, however.
I would, actually,
be willing to give him a safeword override, in which RED would be
indicative of the severity of my problem and he could decide to go ahead
anyhow. . . but he would never do this (which is probably why
I would give him the override). He wants my judgement about my
emotional limits in the most honest way he can get them because he
believes they are the best assessments. . .and he wants to protect me.
I think though, even if this were not the case, it's ok to draw boundaries
around how much power you want to part with. With Rage, I part with
power over my sexuality, over all kinds of things. . .but not everything.
I don't part with, for example, power over my monetary resources. I see
safewords as the same thing. I don't part with the power to have my
personal judgements about what is going on inside my head & heart be *the*
authority on what is going on inside my head & heart. I may not be *totally*
helpless because I have a safeword.. . but I am significantly powerless.
That exchange is significant enough to work for Rage and I. . .and to
be very real, profound, and heady. I am helpless through my agreement not to
safeword except for emergencies as you are by an agreement not to leave
. . . maybe just not to the same degree.
> Getting back to the topic, I think power exchange occurs on a
> continum, but I think the mildest end of that continuium occurs
> when the sub gives up control completely for a short (but
> unpredictable and uncontrollable) period of time. If you have a
> safeword, you still have some measure of control, even if you
> choose not to utter it. Hell, that choice itself is control.
See, my experience does not bear this out. Promising not to safeword
in some situations is not different, in my mind, than promising not to
leave. By staying with a master, you are exercizing some form of
control because there is not a court in this land that would make you
stay. You are *only* enslaved by your own control in consenting to be.
I completely agree with you about the continuum, but I would define
it differently. I believe that the continuum of power exchange is
defined by how *much* power is exchanged rather than for how long
it is exchanged.
There was *one* time when I uttered a safeword in a situation that I
shouldn't have. It was when Rage and I were starting orgasm control.
I hated this. It made me afraid, it made me feel a bit bad about
myself, and it was emotionally uncomfortable to me. I also wanted
to give up this power to Rage like I had never wanted to give anything
before. He had been trying to wrestle this power from me for
months. So I gave it over. And then, when I didn't like it. . . I
safeworded. That safeword was, arguably, a power struggle.
I felt awful. I felt like I had betrayed my master's trust in overstating
the severity of the problem by safewording. I felt like I did not give
him an honest evaluation of the situation and that if he could have overridden
the safeword in this situation he would have. But Rage looked at it
differently. Rage said things to the effect of, "If it hurt bad enough
to make you safeword, your instincts were probably right. *I'm* sure
not going to second guess your instincts. Secondly, this
is an issue for my slave and herself. If you could have given me more
and didn't, then you have to try harder next time and come tell me if
there's a way you think I can help you give to me what I want. If
you couldn't have given me more. . . but are only wishing you could. . .
then you have to accept that *sometimes* you can't do what I ask of you. .
.and I will love you anyhow."
After that episode, Rage came up with a new rule. Since I was feeling like
I could not trust myself not to safeword "responsibly" in this realm
(like I can't trust myself to do with pain), Rage devised a plan whereby
there was no safeword to orgasm control. . .but that he would not be
angry with me if I came without permission. I did, however, have to
"pay a toll." Any cumming without permission would earn me pain. This was
not because I had been "bad," but because he was "training" me. It worked
well for us. . .and taught us a great deal about power exchange and the
limits of it in a consensual situation.
Sincerely,
Laurel
who appologizes for her problematically inconsistent signature and
"From" line (*winks to Alex*) and who also just read Steven Davis'
comments on this topic and thought they were superb.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to ad...@anon.penet.fi.
Kris Asber
>Sure Jon can answer that. Several hundred thousand people read this
>group. I can't imagine that such a large group is not pretty typical of
>those interested in d&s.
How about those who are interested in B&D? S&M?
I think you've just given us a shining example of the fact that you
look at the world through your own filters and preconceptions, and see
what you want to see.
-Kris
(who really *wants* Jon to see another part of reality)
--
No special rights for Christians! kr...@agora.rdrop.com
Jon Jacobs
>In article <3dcrhu$4...@crl10.crl.com>, Jon Jacobs <jac...@crl.com> wrote:
>>Sure Jon can answer that. Several hundred thousand people read this
>>group. I can't imagine that such a large group is not pretty typical of
>>those interested in d&s.
>
>How about those who are interested in B&D? S&M?
Again, I commend you to the book and to earlier messages in this thread.
For reasons that you can agree with or not at your pleasure, we chose in
_Different Loving_ to refer to all of the tendencies which you mention
under the single head of d&s. We explain why in detail in the book, and
that choice did not in any way narrow the focus of what we covered.
Rather, we chose not to condfuse the issue with esoteric and arcane
nomenclature that is of no interest except to the people who feel the
need to use it.
>I think you've just given us a shining example of the fact that you
>look at the world through your own filters and preconceptions, and see
>what you want to see.
On the contrary, what we have here is a fine example of a person who
states sincere opinions and makes sincere and serious accusations without
a glimmer of comprehension of what is actually going on. You ought to
read the material before you shoot your mouth off.
Jon Jacobs
Fred Morris
> In article <m3047-211294170350@blv-p m3...@halcyon.com (Fred Morris) writes:
> >In article <3d1q30$2...@crl4.crl.com>, jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) wrote:
> >
> >> Suffice it to say that I have
> >> said clearly over and over again that there are no doubt a few people who
> >> believe that they are interested only in sadism and masochism who are
> >> correct and not fooling themselves, although our and everyone else's
> >> research suggests that this is not a large group.
Yep, you have.
> >The question that Jon can't answer is: is a.s.b. representative of the rest
> >of his population?
>
> Sure Jon can answer that. Several hundred thousand people read this
> group.
Considerably less post.
> I can't imagine that such a large group is not pretty typical of
> those interested in d&s.
We're targeting different audiences, my imperialist-dominant doddering dolt
of a colleague.
So are we, the other posters on this group, important to you for anything
else other than mental masturbation material?
> About the only element that distinguishes them
> is that they use computers and are therefore probably younger, more male,
> and more likely to be in or near college than the general population.
> The group used for _Different Loving_ was skewed pretty much the same
> way.
Presumably Jon got those stats from an ftp site; congratulations, Jon!
Care to publish the demographics you use for your book to the 'net, so we
all don't have to go out and buy it?
I wonder. If we took a public poll here on a.s.b., probably nobody would
answer. he he he. But if I look at people's posts, it seems to me that the
vectors of B&D, S&M and D&S are all significant.
> >> I am not the one who is blinded, son.
Not that I give a rat's ass, old fuck.
> >> You have to understand that
> >> someone's view of themselves and of what they are not doing is not the
> >> last word on the matter.
How nice of you to share your own self-doubt with us, sir!
> >> I have no idea about you in particular
And I sir, have no idea how you are in your realm -- for this is *not* your
realm -- but I would hope the ethos you have expressed here concerning the
primacy of the law over custom and friendship, ignoramic disavowal of
custom on the grounds that the law is all that matters, does not therein
hold sway.
But that is irrelevant. Indeed, the issue of whether people are fooling
themselves is irrelevant, because you don't say why this is so, more than
in any other case. But let me take a crack at it anyway; maybe you'll be
goaded into doing more than waving your hands in a palsied fashion.
Let's see, let's look at the issue of people "fooling" themselves by
believing they're gay -- that gay lifestyle shouldn't be condoned and
encouraged because *some* gays might be fooling themselves -- however
they're a small part of the overall population; lacking any other evidence
to the contrary, why not apply the same percentage to the whole population
and conclude that a *much larger* absolute number of people are fooling
themselves about *not* being gay? Since you hold that D&S is the
mainstream, by this line of reasoning more people are fooling themselves
about being primarily into D&S than are fooling themselves about *not*
being into D&S.
> >> but I
> >> do know that many, many people who believe as you do are fooling
> >> themselves.
They are just as likely fooling you, or you preselected your population,
your PhD in stochastics modeling notwithstanding. Have your demographic
claims been validated by anyone credible?
Not to slight your book in any way as I haven't read it (if you care to
send me a complimentary copy, I wil) and I don't need to because after all
the internet isn't the real world as you have pointied out, arguably you
and your fellow author's contribution to the understanding of bourgeois
suburban het vanilla D&S (your demographic according to your statements
above: "The group used for _Different Loving_ was skewed pretty much the
same way [as the population that reads a.s.b.]") will surpass what Maj.
Leary and Dr. Alpert did for group dynamics and psychotherapy.
Actually I have one serious question: Atavistic (alpha male ape kowtow,
calling someone a faggot prior to a dominance struggle, calling dominant
women butch or lesbian as a prelude to character assassination in earnest)
D&S seems widely practiced in the general population based on my own
experience. Does the obvious intended mass-market accessibility of your
book, especially to the stated audience cause you any concern regarding the
reinforcing of the June & Ward Cleaver sexual stereotype? I have no
problem with people practicing rough trade behind their lace curtains; but
in the past when these stereotypes were institutionalized various broader
social effects were noted which had an overall negative effect on women,
gays, blacks -- everybody who wasn't part of the dominant class.
> >BAWHAWHAWHAW!
>
> Dang. You've got me there.
BAWHAWHAWHAW!
--
Fred Morris happy punk rock sadist's TENs puppet
m3...@halcyon.com
Jon Jacobs
>So it's Saturday morning, and I've been catching up on a.s.b. I seem
>to have come across several doozies from Jon Jacobs in rapid
>succession. Among them:
>
>>I'm not sure what fantasy s&m is. What I am fighting is something I
>>guess I should call "playparty s&m"--seeing s&m (or d&s) as essentially a
>>kinky kind of swinging.
>
>And in another message:
>
>>By and large, such people are simply unable to face their needs--a bad
>>situation for anybody and not one that most people ought to be willing
>>sanguinely to accept in themselves. Be that as it may, however, my
>>objection has never been to individual people screwing up their own lives
>>but, rather, to the enormous pull exerted on new people by this dominant
>>"play party" culture that steers them away from the serious opportunity
>>for experience of the real thing, whether in a life-style context or not.
>
>And then:
>
>>If you don't like my style, you are the loser. It has proven over many
>>years to be highly effective.
>
>Jon,
>
>You seem to have a very bad case of the belief that, "my way is
>better!" And it's really starting to get under my skin. Let me see
>if I can explain this in a way that you can understand.
>
>BDSM is a very broad label, and it sometimes astonishes me that it's
>possible to put such a diverse set of activities, beliefs, and
>lifestyles all under one umbrella. For better or for worse, though,
>we do. And we need to live with it.
>
>As you probably know from my writings earlier, both publicly and in
>private mail, my interests are in SM, and not in DS. I understand
>that your primary focus is "genuine" power exchange, although I must
>admit that I haven't followed closely enough to know if that also
>involves SM.
>
>When I read a.s.b, I read it through my own set of filters, as do you.
>You see a preponderance of "playparty s&m" to the exclusion of more
>serious DS. When *I* read a.s.b, what I find is mostly things related
>to DS, with very little pure SM involved. For example, when discussing
>a scene in the abstract, many writers will refer to the bottom as the
>sub or the slave, even when they are discussing something that
>otherwise reads like a pure SM exchange, with no DS context.
>
>Do you really believe that I'm "screwing up my life" by seeking out SM
>and not power exchange?
I'm not going to answer this in depth, because before you issue such a
boadside, you ought at least to have read the messages that you're
responding to, which you admit you have not. Much of the silliness which
you express above is answered elsewhere. Suffice it to say that I have
said clearly over and over again that there are no doubt a few people who
believe that they are interested only in sadism and masochism who are
correct and not fooling themselves, although our and everyone else's
research suggests that this is not a large group. I have also said and
say again that many people who believe this about themselves are fooling
themselves, unwilling to face the emotional and other implications of
being interested in power exchange. If you are one of the first group,
good luck to you. If you are one of the second group, then, yes, you are
screwing up your life--to the extent that anyone screws up his or her
life by fooling him- or herself about something emotionally important.
>And now, again, the words that rankled me the most:
>
>>If you don't like my style, you are the loser. It has proven over many
>>years to be highly effective.
>
>Your style is not my style, but I don't I certainly don't consider
>myself to have lost out because of it. I fully respect that for many
>people, "true" power exchange is what they seek, and what will make
>them happy. I respect them for that, and would never think of it as a
>lesser endeavor than my own. Your style is highly effective for you.
>Mine is highly effective for me.
I was speaking above about my personal style in messages here, not about
any other sort of style. You have not the slightest knowledge of my
style in any other context.
>Jon, you're so blinded by your way of doing things that you can't see
>that it's not for everyone, and that it's not the only way. In a lot
>of ways you're the DS equivalent of a white supremacist: you're so
>hung up with the goodness of your way that everything else must, by
>necessity, be inferior. Your way may be right, but that doesn't make
>mine (or anyone else's) wrong.
I am not the one who is blinded, son. You have to understand that
someone's view of themselves and of what they are not doing is not the
last word on the matter. I have no idea about you in particular, but I
do know that many, many people who believe as you do are fooling
themselves. Whenever I say that sort of thing, some people go catatonic,
others o up like a rocket, but there it is. Although there is precious
little good data on all of this, there is a bit, and my job is to know
what those data are. WE represented many of them in our book. I commend
it to you for more on this.
Jon Jacobs
Xiphias Gladius
the quirks of my newsserver, as well as by the quirks of Mr Jacobs's
logic.
As far as I can tell, one of his points seems to be that all BDSM is
actually d&s, a proposition that I find untenable.
If this is not what Mr Jacobs is saying, please feel free to hit 'n'
now, as I am going to attempt to provide a counterexample in the
remainder of this post.
As I have said before on asb, I am a "six-way switch", in that I like
to give and receive pain, restraint, and control. For me, all six of
those preferences engender distinct emotional reactions.
1. Pure bondage, received, engenders a feeling of comfort and
"being-cared-for," a feeling of safety.
2. Pure bondage, given, has an aethstetic appeal.
3. Pure sadism gives an adrenalin rush, a feeling of "wickedness",
and an activation of my animal self.
4. Pure masochism gives the physical pleasure of endorphin rush, and
the religious feeling of trancing, as well as freedom from my body.
5. Pure domination gives a feeling of caring and power, a feeling of
enveloping love.
6. Pure submission gives me a comforting feeling of non-existence, a
freedom from myself.
Now, these, of course, can be mixed-and-matched, sometimes with
surprising results . . . 2, combined with 3 or 5, is completely
subsumed into the other, that is, for me, when doing something else,
bondage is only an aid, not a goal in itself; however, when used on
its own, it is its own end.
4 combined with 6 gives me the bliss of pure void, except when it
activates my animal self and causes the same reaction as 3.
None of them are inherently sexual, although the first three can
include it.
See, Mr Jacobs has always seemed to miss half of BDSM. He understands
the emotional part, but he seems to entirely miss the purely physical.
Is it so hard to understand that pain purely feels good? Is it a
difficult concept that endorphins make one happy?
Why must a relationship be based on power exchange? Scenes exist
where the only purpose of them is for one party to get adrenalin, and
the other to get endorphins, with no power exchange, no submission, no
sexuality. Every time I have scened with Elle, for instance, it has
been in that paradigm. Every time I scene with davo, it is for the
pure giving and receiving of pain.
On the other hand, every time I have scened with Pookie, it has been
for the pure exchange of power. She doesn't *like* being hurt, but
she will take it, for the power exchange. Rebecc-ah is purely a power
exchange switch; bondage and pain are tools for her.
Further, I have played with other people for whom pain and/or bondage
is purely sexual. They do not enjoy it in of itself, but being
bitten, being tied makes them horny. There is no power exchange in
that situation; it is simply what turns them on.
There are people whose reasons for sceneing are combinations of the
above, too. It is naive to assign any simple motivation broadly. It
is simplistic to say that BDSM is d&s, or s&m, or kinky sex, for it is
all of those things, and yet is not. It *is* sex, it *is* a religious
rite, it *is* a power exchange, it *is* pleasure, it *is* foreplay,
and it *is* comfort and freedom. One must not forget that, and one
must not oversimplify.
Damn. Maybe I *should* write a book. Hey, Layna, wannaedit?
- Ian
Layna
(lots removed just to avoid being one of those people who quotes the whole
thing & says "Yeah! Like that!")
: As I have said before on asb, I am a "six-way switch", in that I like
: to give and receive pain, restraint, and control. For me, all six of
: those preferences engender distinct emotional reactions.
: 1. Pure bondage, received, engenders a feeling of comfort and
: "being-cared-for," a feeling of safety.
: 2. Pure bondage, given, has an aethstetic appeal.
: 3. Pure sadism gives an adrenalin rush, a feeling of "wickedness",
: and an activation of my animal self.
: 4. Pure masochism gives the physical pleasure of endorphin rush, and
: the religious feeling of trancing, as well as freedom from my body.
: 5. Pure domination gives a feeling of caring and power, a feeling of
: enveloping love.
: 6. Pure submission gives me a comforting feeling of non-existence, a
: freedom from myself.
(great mix'n'match concepts deleted for same reason, sigh)
: There are people whose reasons for sceneing are combinations of the
: above, too. It is naive to assign any simple motivation broadly. It
: is simplistic to say that BDSM is d&s, or s&m, or kinky sex, for it is
: all of those things, and yet is not. It *is* sex, it *is* a religious
: rite, it *is* a power exchange, it *is* pleasure, it *is* foreplay,
: and it *is* comfort and freedom. One must not forget that, and one
: must not oversimplify.
: Damn. Maybe I *should* write a book. Hey, Layna, wannaedit?
Edit? Sure! :-) Actually, I wouldn't mind helping out with the research
a bit, to be honest... WONDERFUL to see such well thought-out,
articulate presentation of what's so often hard to articulate...
Layna
Alex Martelli
...[excellent post mostly though regretfully snipped]...
>There are people whose reasons for sceneing are combinations of the
>above, too. It is naive to assign any simple motivation broadly. It
...and then there are those for whom it _changes_, as quite clearly it
changes for _you_, from what you have written, depending on many
factors, but, crucially, on one's partner[s] and the relationship[s]
with them. I think you and I are very similar in this respect, from
what I have seen of you and read from you...
You appear to me to have an even wider range than myself, which IS
pretty amazing:-) -- I don't get much from just-bondage, while you
do -- but maybe it's just that I never had a partner who _was_ into
bondage per se, without pain and/or power play going on at the same
time (of course, it _is_ something of a self-reinforcing circle, the
causation running both ways).
I do wonder how you perceived the scene at that party in Boston where I
bottomed to you and several other people... I remember you pretty well
because you were in front most of the time, where I could see you,
while Davo, Marchesa and topazzz mostly stayed behind me, seeing to my
back and buttocks by various means fair and foul:-). Was I getting off
on the sheer pain? Submitting to, what, half a dozen people at once,
or more? Getting off on an overload of being the center of attention
of so many wonderful people at once, even without counting the ones
watching? I've got my own ideas about what worked so wonderfully there,
of course, but am curious about other participants' perceptions...!
Alex
--
____ Alex Martelli, Bologna, Italia -- mailbox permanently overfull!
\SM/___
\/\bi/ O'er the Morning of my day, underneath the Net I stray,
\/ Now intreating Iron Wire, now intreating Burning Fire...
Fred Morris
> In article <D1A7B...@agora.rdrop.com>, kr...@agora.rdrop.com (Kris Asber) says:
> >Almost everyone I know would agree that dominant is a subset of top,
> >and submissive is a subset of bottom. When I read _Different Loving_,
> Suppose I am submissive to my master, and therefor I "allow" him to whip
> me (not denying I like it). Does that conform with submissive being a subset
> of bottom?
I'd think you'd need to define "submissive" and "allow"; after all, I can
"fly" -- all I have to do is get on an airplane. The second question
doesn't follow necessarily from the first, if the definitions don't stay
the same. On the surface I would say that the first question is
contradictory, that somebody who is submitting to someone else is
subrogating their will to this other person.
We all disagree on these things, and I'm not an expert on D&S (Jon?), but
I'd bet you "allow" yourself to be a submissive and to be dominated, not
that you certify every action -- if you're a true submissive. The more
interesting thing perhaps to point out is just because you're the one on
the receiving end doesn't have to mean you're the submissive: what if you
didn't "allow" him to do it, you "ordered" him to?
How good is your communication and rapport with this other person if you
need to certify every action that you'll submit to? Or maybe you're on the
receiving end, but you're not a submissive.
--
Fred Morris
m3...@halcyon.com
Peter McDermott
i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) wrote:
>Now, I'm attempting to follow this thread, a task made difficult by
>the quirks of my newsserver, as well as by the quirks of Mr Jacobs's
>logic.
You think it's bad in the USA? You should be over here.
>As far as I can tell, one of his points seems to be that all BDSM is
>actually d&s, a proposition that I find untenable.
I _don't_ actually think that that is what Jon Jacobs is saying. It
seems to me that what his is doing is creating his own conceptual
model to explain the phenomenon. Within this, the terms D&S refer
less to a particular set of attitudes and activities, but he seems
to feel the term can more usefully be used, insofar as it can provide
a framework within which we can think about BDSM in it's entireity.
Seen in this way, what JJ's critics are calling D&S should more
be viewed as a subset of what Jon is calling D&S. That, IMO, is the
whole point of writing a book or an article. Trying to say anything without
conceptual clarity is dificult, perhaps even pointless. As a writer, you
get
to frame the arguments in a way that best suits your theory. It's
something
that we all do, but if you've had a book published on the topic, then there
is a greater chance that a greater number of people will embrace your
formulation of the concepts.
>If this is not what Mr Jacobs is saying, please feel free to hit 'n'
>now, as I am going to attempt to provide a counterexample in the
>remainder of this post.
Well, it isn't what he's saying, but when did anyone here ever do
as they were told? Especially rebellious tops?
>As I have said before on asb, I am a "six-way switch", in that I like
>to give and receive pain, restraint, and control. For me, all six of
>those preferences engender distinct emotional reactions.
Translation: Kinky swinger. ;)
<Ian's explanation of why he does what he likes to do cut.>
FWIW, I don't buy all of Jon's theory either. I regard myself as primarily
a sadist, with a small(ish) interest in what JJ's opponents are calling
domination. However, I believe that is argument is plausible and has
merit and feel that people's inability to leap out of their own
reality tunnels are actually blinding them to what is being said.
So I don't see it as inconceivable that one could engage in pure pain
play, yet at the same time, have what Jacobs is characterizing as
genuine power exchange take place. In fact, the more I think about it,
the more it seems to define exactly what I'm seeking. I have little
interest in the classic 'you will serve your master' stuff, and I've
never had any dealings with collars. Similarly, I've little interest
in just hurting somebody in a controlled and limited fashion. What I
want is nothing less than total freedom to exercise my will over another
human being -- not so that I can order them about, but so that I can
hurt them how I want to, when I want to, as much or as little as I
want to. It doesn't need to be 24/7/365. The knowledge that these
factors characterize what it is that we do when we do it is sufficient.
Now I _don't_ believe he's saying that everyone wants to or should do
this, or even that this is necessarily inherently superior. He's
saying that if you _are_ this way inclined, then there are certain
paths that can make the experience more meaningful, more satisfying.
Not everybody is either ready, willing or desirous of pursuing those
paths, but according to his research, a high proportion of those who
have devoted a lot of time and energy to finding what works for them
have found that this route had most value. People who are similarly
inclined can benefit from their experience. And in that sense, something
that _is_ more satisfying, more meaningful or whatever, is obviously
superior.
>See, Mr Jacobs has always seemed to miss half of BDSM. He understands
>the emotional part, but he seems to entirely miss the purely physical.
It may be that he doesn't choose to focus on those issues. That's his
prerogative. We focus on that whick interests us.
>Is it so hard to understand that pain purely feels good? Is it a
>difficult concept that endorphins make one happy?
No. It's just missing the point.
--
pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk Cool as fuck!
Peter McDermott
amar...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Alex Martelli) wrote:
>an1...@anon.penet.fi (Hound Dog.) writes:
> ...
>>> The group used for _Different Loving_ was skewed pretty much the same
>>> way.
> ...
>>important to the discussion: asb readers are all in communication with each
>>other to some extent -- all seeking out communication about BDSM. Since
>>openness about sex is difficult for many people, and perhaps more so for
>>people outside the sexual mainstream, I'd claim that this is an important
>>respect in which asb readers -- and especially active participants in asb --
>>may not be typical of the BDSM-interested population.
>
>However, as JJ points out, a very similar ``self-selection sampling bias''
>operated in "Different loving" -- those may not all have been people who
>*seeked out* communication about BDSM, but they were to some extent ones
>who (a) were _identifiable_ as BDSM-interested, AND (b) were _willing_ to
>communicate about BDSM. These, as you say, are "strong" filters for
>sample-bias assesment purposes, considering the general population's
>inhibitions about sexual discourse AND the pressure on deviants to stay
>hidden -- but the same qualitative considerations apply to both biased
>samples. The predictive power of one towards the other (from a strictly
>statistical POV) can be perhaps doubted on _other_ grounds, such as one
>of sheer size versus high population variance, but, it seems to me, not
>so easily on biased-sample grounds (unless other sources of bias yet
>were also active and haven't so far been mentioned). The predictive
>power of either sample towards the general population they're drawn
>from IS, of course, weakened by the sampling biases.
While this is certainly true as a statistical proposition, it's
pretty true to say that almost all survey methods in the social
sciences face similar limitations. (And of course, I'm not sure
that Jon actually _quantifies_ his data anywhere, so it's
difficult for us to reach our own conclusions about the validity
or reliability of his propositions here, but let that pass.)
I suppose I'm curious about how you think that such a sampling
bias would actually affect the heuristic value of the data? As
all science is always theory laden, I can see that there could be
a great deal of value in criticizing his hypotheses and the assumptions
that he makes, but unless we have a theory about how these sample
biases would unreasonably skew his findings, raising such issues
adds little to our understanding of the issues.
Steven S. Davis
References: <184321Z...@anon.penet.fi>
<3dmq6b$g...@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) writes
> i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, one of his points seems to be that all BDSM is
>> actually d&s, a proposition that I find untenable.
> I _don't_ actually think that that is what Jon Jacobs is saying. It
> seems to me that what his is doing is creating his own conceptual
> model to explain the phenomenon. Within this, the terms D&S refer
> less to a particular set of attitudes and activities, but he seems
> to feel the term can more usefully be used, insofar as it can provide
> a framework within which we can think about BDSM in it's entireity.
Agreed that he uses D&S to refer to everything, but recognizes what
the other categories are. But he didn't decide to subsume them all
under D&S haphazardly.
> Seen in this way, what JJ's critics are calling D&S should more
> be viewed as a subset of what Jon is calling D&S.
This is true, but the arguments haven't center on a misunderstanding
about how Jon uses the term. The portion of what some call BDSM,
and Jon calls D&S, that involves power exchange is what the fights
been over. Lot's of people say they don't want power exchange; Jon
insists that most of them really do, and most that don't would if
a) they'd been exposed to real power exchange b) they were able
to be honest about their wants and c) they were capable of it.
It's not very surprising that an assertion that can be uncharitably
interpretated as "power exchange is what you want, and you'd know
that if you weren't ignorant, dishonest, or weak" angered a few
people. Granted, at times Jon will concede that they are some few
who think they are really interested in something else and are
actually "correct and not fooling themselves", but this is a small
group, and you probably aren't in it.
[snip]
> FWIW, I don't buy all of Jon's theory either. I regard myself as
> primarily a sadist, with a small(ish) interest in what JJ's opponents
> are calling domination.
Deluding yourself, son.
> However, I believe that is argument is plausible and has
> merit and feel that people's inability to leap out of their own
> reality tunnels are actually blinding them to what is being said.
I think they're getting what's being said, they just don't like it.
> So I don't see it as inconceivable that one could engage in pure pain
> play, yet at the same time, have what Jacobs is characterizing as
> genuine power exchange take place.
Define "pure pain play". Certainly painplay and power exchange can
OK at the same time, but if by pure painplay you mean painplay w/o
any D&S, in which the bottom can stop it at any time, I don't think
there's any power exchange going on, and I don't think Jon would
either. If I ask you to flog me "X" number of times and can tell
you hard/softer/faster/slower (and have you listen) and can make
you stop any time, there's no power exchange.
> In fact, the more I think about it,
> the more it seems to define exactly what I'm seeking. I have little
> interest in the classic 'you will serve your master' stuff, and I've
> never had any dealings with collars. Similarly, I've little interest
> in just hurting somebody in a controlled and limited fashion. What I
> want is nothing less than total freedom to exercise my will over another
> human being -- not so that I can order them about, but so that I can
> hurt them how I want to, when I want to, as much or as little as I
> want to.
_That_ would be power exchange. And it's very enticing. Though
unless you're prepared to accept the sub's severe injury or death,
you really don't have total freedom to exercise your will, and if
you are prepared for that consequence, is she ? There are subs
who are ready for such consequences, so consensuality and such total
power aren't completely incompatible, but it's not going to be common.
> Now I _don't_ believe he's saying that everyone wants to or should
> do this, or even that this is necessarily inherently superior.
The part about the pain isn't necessary for Jon, but the part about
having power over someone against which sie has no recourse is, and
he does claim it's better than practices that don't feature such power.
> He's
> saying that if you _are_ this way inclined, then there are certain
> paths that can make the experience more meaningful, more satisfying.
> Not everybody is either ready, willing or desirous of pursuing those
> paths,
Here's where we disagree on what Jon's saying; perhaps not by much,
but still significantly. I think he's saying that nearly everyone
who's interested in what we call BDSM (a group which includes many
with no awareness of their interest) would be happier if they
engaged power exchange, but some are not aware of it, others are
willing to admit it, and others are not capable of it. I'm not
sure whether he really meant to tell so many people that if
they don't do power exchange that it's probably because they're
too deluded, ignorant or weak, but I think that is what he's been
saying recently.
>> See, Mr Jacobs has always seemed to miss half of BDSM. He understands
>> the emotional part, but he seems to entirely miss the purely physical.
> It may be that he doesn't choose to focus on those issues. That's his
> prerogative. We focus on that whick interests us.
But if you are going to say that people do painplay as a way of
engaging in power exchange, you'd better understand the physical.
Which Jon may very well understand.
>> Is it so hard to understand that pain purely feels good? Is
>> it a difficult concept that endorphins make one happy?
> No. It's just missing the point.
No, it's quite on point. If I have no interest in power exchange
(I do, but let's assume I don't), and I just liked being flogged
because it worked up endorphins, then the idea that I really want
power exchange but I won't admit it to myself would seem pretty
outrageous. And has generated a lot of outrage.
3r...@pinn.net
: ca...@world.std.com (Cassi Ann Donahue) writes:
: ...
: >>(who really *wants* Jon to see another part of reality)
: >Kris,
: >Don't hold your breath.
: Seconded! If nothing else, it would get Jay Wiseman all upset...!-)
: >Cassi
: >(who's always wondered if the reason JJ found so much interest in d&s is
: >because he went out and interviewed people "interested in d&s")
: I think it goes deeper, as evidenced by his refusal to see when
: repeatedly confronted by people whose interests differ. I think Kris
: was close to the mark when she pointed out that he only has a part of
: the picture -- and, I add, a desperate need to believe he instead knows
: all there is to know. "When all you have is a hammer, all things have
: a tendency to look to you like nails...":-)
: Alex
: --
: ____ Alex Martelli, Bologna, Italia -- mailbox permanently overfull!
: \SM/___
: \/\bi/ Mutual Forgiveness of each Vice,
: \/ Such are the Gates of Paradise.
Again, Alex has a good spin on this whole debate, to which I might add
that different people are on different planes in this whole BDSM thing.
Some are aware of power exchanges, some not; others enjoy "playing"
because it feels good or excites them more than vanilla "power exchanges"
The joke is when someone claims that everybody else is full of it simply
because they don't adhere to their way or the jargon they choose to use.
That's just fine, isn't it?
Fred Morris
to point out that the internet has always excelled at that -- at forming a
critical mass from diaspora. Best articulation I can get my hands on
rapidly is from _The Whole Internet.._, and I can't find the quote (oops),
but essentially the thesis is that critical mass is two.
The people that post to a.s.b. are different from the readers.
The people who post to a.s.b. for the whole world to see are probably
somewhat different than the people who would agree to be interviewed in a
sympathetic manner for a book; and furthermore posting to usenet invites,
as we are all painfully aware, flameage of a personal nature.
In the past there has been some mention of the incongruity of submissives
posting to a.s.b. at all, on the theory that submissive == shy/tender.
As a long time off-and-on internet (ab)user I think it likely that the
self-selected group which posts to a.s.b. is different from the group who
would agree to be interviewed for a book. That doesn't invalidate either
population. However, a book is traditional media, and the internet is
dynamic, living, multi-channel communication. Yowww!
Is there some difference in communication or negotiation skills, or "safety
in numbers", or ? Well, Jon wrote a book, maybe he'll deign to tell us.
Jon, I hope you don't go away; I don't doubt that you know a lot about D&S
or that you have a lot of general knowledge. But we have to make a deal: if
you call me "son" one more time, I have to call you "rotting corpse". ;-)
(my father's dead) Given your outlook, then pending your permission I will
refrain from doing so (actually I would find it amusing in an extremely
silly sort of way). I don't know. I'm trying to set a new tone here, and
probably screwing it up bad. People who survive on a.s.b. either like
getting burns or wear asbestos gloves... Actually, my guess is you've
survived your baptism by fire. Am I right?
Happy new year.
--
Fred Morris
m3...@halcyon.com
Peter McDermott
the universe yet, Steven Davis writes:
>In Message-ID: <AB25F73F9...@petermc.demon.co.uk>
> References: <184321Z...@anon.penet.fi>
> <3dmq6b$g...@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
>Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
>pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) writes
>
>
>> i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) wrote:
>
>
>>> As far as I can tell, one of his points seems to be that all BDSM is
>>> actually d&s, a proposition that I find untenable.
>
>
>> I _don't_ actually think that that is what Jon Jacobs is saying. It
>> seems to me that what his is doing is creating his own conceptual
>> model to explain the phenomenon. Within this, the terms D&S refer
>> less to a particular set of attitudes and activities, but he seems
>> to feel the term can more usefully be used, insofar as it can provide
>> a framework within which we can think about BDSM in it's entireity.
>
>Agreed that he uses D&S to refer to everything, but recognizes what
>the other categories are. But he didn't decide to subsume them all
>under D&S haphazardly.
Agreed.
>> Seen in this way, what JJ's critics are calling D&S should more
>> be viewed as a subset of what Jon is calling D&S.
>
>This is true, but the arguments haven't center on a misunderstanding
>about how Jon uses the term. The portion of what some call BDSM,
>and Jon calls D&S, that involves power exchange is what the fights
>been over. Lot's of people say they don't want power exchange; Jon
>insists that most of them really do, and most that don't would if
>a) they'd been exposed to real power exchange b) they were able
>to be honest about their wants and c) they were capable of it.
I guess I've been giving it a more charitable interpretation, which
is _if_ you happen to have this particular orientation, then it
may well be that there are other ways of getting you where you are
looking to go. However, many people have a range of things blocking
the route. Can you be sure that _you_ aren't facing these blocks?
Only honest self-examination can let you know whether you are or
not.
>It's not very surprising that an assertion that can be uncharitably
>interpretated as "power exchange is what you want, and you'd know
>that if you weren't ignorant, dishonest, or weak" angered a few
>people. Granted, at times Jon will concede that they are some few
>who think they are really interested in something else and are
>actually "correct and not fooling themselves", but this is a small
>group, and you probably aren't in it.
I grant that he doesnt spend a great deal of time on all the
various qualifiers that other people would. I also accept that
he does make unreasonable assumptions about people when they
say that they know what they want and that it doesnt fit his
conceptual model.
Nevertheless, I see a great many more people who are conceptually
unclear about what it is that they do, and why it is that they
do it, who are arguing from a knee-jerk reaction to his manner
rather than to what he's actually saying.
>
>> FWIW, I don't buy all of Jon's theory either. I regard myself as
>> primarily a sadist, with a small(ish) interest in what JJ's opponents
>> are calling domination.
>
>Deluding yourself, son.
Quite possibly. That may be why I'm prepared to give his theory
headspace, whether I ultimately reject it or not, and see that his
argument has value insofar as it forces me to examine these issues
within myself.
>> However, I believe that is argument is plausible and has
>> merit and feel that people's inability to leap out of their own
>> reality tunnels are actually blinding them to what is being said.
>
>
>I think they're getting what's being said, they just don't like it.
I think some are. Others aren't.
>> So I don't see it as inconceivable that one could engage in pure pain
>> play, yet at the same time, have what Jacobs is characterizing as
>> genuine power exchange take place.
>
>
>Define "pure pain play". Certainly painplay and power exchange can
>OK at the same time, but if by pure painplay you mean painplay w/o
>any D&S, in which the bottom can stop it at any time, I don't think
>there's any power exchange going on, and I don't think Jon would
>either. If I ask you to flog me "X" number of times and can tell
>you hard/softer/faster/slower (and have you listen) and can make
>you stop any time, there's no power exchange.
OK. I'll buy that.
>> In fact, the more I think about it,
>> the more it seems to define exactly what I'm seeking. I have little
>> interest in the classic 'you will serve your master' stuff, and I've
>> never had any dealings with collars. Similarly, I've little interest
>> in just hurting somebody in a controlled and limited fashion. What I
>> want is nothing less than total freedom to exercise my will over another
>> human being -- not so that I can order them about, but so that I can
>> hurt them how I want to, when I want to, as much or as little as I
>> want to.
>
>_That_ would be power exchange. And it's very enticing. Though
>unless you're prepared to accept the sub's severe injury or death,
>you really don't have total freedom to exercise your will, and if
Doesn't that depend on whether my desires embrace the likelihood of
causing severe injury or death? The point being, that I decide where
those limits/risks lie. And yes, take responsibility for them as well.
>you are prepared for that consequence, is she ? There are subs
>who are ready for such consequences, so consensuality and such total
>power aren't completely incompatible, but it's not going to be common.
This seems to me to be the nub of Jon's point. With somebody that you
play with casually it certainly isn't going to be common. However, in
the context of an ongoing relationship, the trust necessary for such
power exchange is more likely to be cultivated. Surely this is the
reason why he rants about 'swinging kinky singles' and the dominant
ideology -- because he sees this tendency as getting in the way of that
trust. And if that is actually the reason why you _are_ playing with
this stuff, then yes, you probably _are_ doing yourself a disservice
if you blind yourself to his message.
>> Now I _don't_ believe he's saying that everyone wants to or should
>> do this, or even that this is necessarily inherently superior.
>
>The part about the pain isn't necessary for Jon, but the part about
>having power over someone against which sie has no recourse is, and
>he does claim it's better than practices that don't feature such power.
I think here we need to unpack the term 'better'. He believes it's
better if you have a genuine interest/desire/concern in playing with
power. He also believes that most people who play with pain do so
because of an interest in the former. I think that if you ignore his
judgements about what proportion of all those who are interested in
BDSM are genuinely not interested in D&S, then the first half of the
equation actually makes sense.
>> He's
>> saying that if you _are_ this way inclined, then there are certain
>> paths that can make the experience more meaningful, more satisfying.
>> Not everybody is either ready, willing or desirous of pursuing those
>> paths,
>
>Here's where we disagree on what Jon's saying; perhaps not by much,
>but still significantly. I think he's saying that nearly everyone
>who's interested in what we call BDSM (a group which includes many
>with no awareness of their interest) would be happier if they
>engaged power exchange, but some are not aware of it, others are
>willing to admit it, and others are not capable of it. I'm not
Would you accept that this was probably true of a great many people
who are interested in BDSM (as opposed to nearly everyone). Because
I think that once you modify his statement ever so slightly (to
compensate for his bluster) it becomes very much easier to accept.
>sure whether he really meant to tell so many people that if
>they don't do power exchange that it's probably because they're
>too deluded, ignorant or weak, but I think that is what he's been
>saying recently.
Well, that may be how it's been coming out, but if you shift the
formulation somewhat to say that it's because there are obstacles -
in opportunity, in their personal biography or their psychological
make up, once again, we lose the polarizing judgements and end up
with a proposition that I find very easy to accept.
>>> Is it so hard to understand that pain purely feels good? Is
>>> it a difficult concept that endorphins make one happy?
>
>> No. It's just missing the point.
>
>No, it's quite on point. If I have no interest in power exchange
>(I do, but let's assume I don't), and I just liked being flogged
>because it worked up endorphins, then the idea that I really want
>power exchange but I won't admit it to myself would seem pretty
>outrageous. And has generated a lot of outrage.
OK, granted. And I'm still not sure why I'm being so generous in
my interpretation of the miserable old so-and-so's thesis. Except
I seem to be finding that the more I think about it, the truer it
seems to be for me.
Mileage may or may not vary, depending on whether you buy the
thesis or not. :-)
--
pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk 'cool as fuck!'
Jon Jacobs
>
>Rosie wrote a very interesting post that I would like to address. . .
>not to dispute with her personal observations, but to add another
>"spin" if you will based on my own experiences, feelings and uses
>for safewords.
>
>Rosie wrote:
>
>> I have a hard time seeing a scene where a sub has a safeword as a
>> power exchange, because the sub isn't really ever helpless: the
>> scene could end at any minute at the sub's whim, not your whim.
>> The sub has the ultimate veto--the ultimate control.
>
>I guess that I feel if you are in a consensual agreement, the sub always has
>the ultimate veto or control because they can, as Cassi said, simply
>say goodbye.
What you're ignoring here--and you seem very sincere and thoughtful about
it--is the reality of control. Rosie is trying to tell you that even
though, certainly, she has the physical power to leave--although she says
that she knows that Donald would bring her back--she will not do so
because Donald, in fact, controls her. She is certain of that fact.
>But if I bought Rosie's reasoning, I would have to conclude that Rage and
>I never had a power exchange except for the few times we had a suspended
>safeword scene. While those non-safeword experiences were intense,
>they did not produce a different headspace or feel of helplessness than
>any other time we've ever played. In fact, the most helpless feeling
>and deepest scenes we've ever done have all been with safewords. (FWIW, Rage
>and I are almost always "in scene" as it were, because we consider ourselves
>to be lifestyle. . .however, I don't have a better vocabulary to describe
>those times in our lives when we are most intensely behaving as dominant and
>submissive except for the words "playing" or "scening.")
There's no doubt that a genuine power exchange is difficult to achieve.
From what you say above, I can only conclude that, as you suggest
ironically, you have not in fact been in a power-exchange relationship.
Maybe that's fine for you, but you ought at least to consider whether you
might want more than you have.
Power exchange requires someone who genuinely wants to be controlled and
someone else who is capable of controlling by the power of his or her
personality, his or her dominant personality. That's the minimum, of
course--ot requires a great deal more, too.
Jon Jacobs
Fred Morris
Power exchanges happen every day. You have a job, don't you? Do you ever
ride in a car when someone else is driving (don't think that's power
exchange? don't ride in a car with *my* mother driving!)? You have an
internet account, don't you? No, to call something a "power exchange" and
have it mean something, it's got to be more than that. If it isn't then
you're back to something analogous to simplistic Freudianism and everything
is explained by potty training or improper separation from the mother or
oedipal guilt. Spare me the coffee shop philosophy; mind if I piss on your
crumpets instead? No? O.k.; well have an insipid day and press n now.
I haven't read Jon's book, but those who have and reported here seem to
concur in their impression that the book focuses on what we here call D&S
as opposed to B&D, S&M, LMNOP.
D&S is extremely common and is practiced by most primates and many social
mammals. Actually I've said that one before; but nobody's commented on it
at all. Is Jon saying that what people are really getting off on, if
they're honest, is power tripping? Am I being simplistic here? I don't give
a shit if that's what you get off on, I don't even particularly care
whether or not I'm playing with someone who's getting off on it; but I
don't care for non-consensually having that attitude rammed down my throat
in a manner that reeks of rationalization. If someone is going to make an
ass out of themselves over the issue outside of their own realm, I can play
it any way that suits my fancy, and I will.
I have had the good fortune to be part of an S&M/Leather discussion group.
Not everybody shows up for every session. There is definitely a difference
in the character of the audience at different sessions. How stereotyped do
I have to get? Do I have to say that at a session on etiquette and protocol
there are a bunch of daddies and boys and it's all very head trippy, as
opposed to the more relaxed and detached atmosphere at a session where
needle play is demonstrated? Well, it's true. Not only do they *act*
differently, they dress differently. Much more leather/fetish when the
topic is etiquette, protocol, S&M/Leather question&answer & the like. Very
educational to see it side by side like that, albeit the "side by side" is
temporal rather than spatial.
The expenditure of currency is not a reliable indicator of wealth. I am
very aware of protocol and power exchange issues; most of the time I just
don't give a fuck. My S.O. & I would probably do almost anything the other
asked unquestioningly; but we don't ask that of each other routinely --
that is not the currency of our relationship. There is no basis for
concluding that because someone is relinquishing power that they're
actually getting anything in return, anymore than there is for concluding
that if you hand someone your cash you're getting anything more in return
than good karma. There is no more basis for concluding that someone who
takes in a lot of money is a better person than someone who doesn't, than
there is for presuming that a dom is superior to a sub or -- more
importantly -- *someone who isn't interested in D&S*. There is no more
reason for thinking that those who exchange power are engaged in a more
advanced economy than there is for claiming that the "first world" is more
advanced than any of the cultures which have been destroyed in the name of
"economic progress" -- in fact there is a power exchange going on in both,
isn't there? Somebody stop me before I unequivocally declare that
proselytising D&S is imperialism based upon the creation of iniquity; ick,
I'd sound like E.S... err... maybe I do... time to move on.
I really hate kiss & tell, at least without the consent of the other
parties. But I will say that recently my S.O. and I bottomed (together) for
a fairly well-known heavy sadist/dom. I (alone) saw him at work (being a
sadist) nearly a year ago and he was amusing to watch and I told him so.
When we started running into each other in public places (outside the
scene.. sort of) he made more than one pass at us in a rather dommish
fashion. Much later I ran into him in a public place which was
scene-related and, turning protocol inside out, offered to cook dinner for
him in return for... well, it didn't really matter; because being
approached like that totally threw him. We saw him yet again at a non-scene
public place and this time a date was struck. And so I cooked dinner and we
bottomed for him. That's right, *bottomed*. He doesn't need us to lick his
boots, he's got subs for that. The chance to have a couple of fairly heavy
S&M players who really are a couple at his disposal -- without having to
give much thought to ordering us around, after care, all that mental
bullshit -- I think that was something different. Hell, I *know* it was. We
all agree we'll do it again! Now folks, get real: *we spent nearly a year*
negotiating issues concerning power (which was a fun chess game in and of
itself), so that we could dispense with the idea entirely. Understand?
"I want a holiday in the sun; I wanna go to the new Belsen; I wanna see
some history; 'cause now I got a reasonable economy" -- fuck off you
wankers, you didn't understand the Sex Pistols either.
--
Fred Morris
m3...@halcyon.com
(trying very hard to resist the snap judgement that people who are heavy
into D&S are throwbacks or really vanillas in disguise)
Jon Jacobs
>Various people (including myself) have touched on self-selection. I wanted
>to point out that the internet has always excelled at that -- at forming a
>critical mass from diaspora. Best articulation I can get my hands on
>rapidly is from _The Whole Internet.._, and I can't find the quote (oops),
>but essentially the thesis is that critical mass is two.
>
>The people that post to a.s.b. are different from the readers.
>
>The people who post to a.s.b. for the whole world to see are probably
>somewhat different than the people who would agree to be interviewed in a
>sympathetic manner for a book; and furthermore posting to usenet invites,
>as we are all painfully aware, flameage of a personal nature.
>
This seems like a fine place to point out once again that I know the
difference and that it is the readers, not the posters, whom I am
generally addressing (there are some posters who are exceptions to this
rule). Usually, I am using the posters to talk to the readers. The
posters are allowing themselves to be used. Here's hoping they keep it up.
Jon Jacobs
Xiphias Gladius
>> You have to understand that
>> someone's view of themselves and of what they are not doing is not the
>> last word on the matter.
Then what is?
I can assure you, sir, that I *am* interested in domination and
submisssion, from both sides. I can assure you, too, sir, that I can
use pain and bondage to facilitate those, as you say.
However, I can assure you, also, that I can use pain and bondage in
ways that involve no more power exchange than a massage, no more than
vanilla sex, no more than a conversation. I can even use them in ways
that have no power exchange at all.
Now, when I say these things, it *is* possible that I am deluding
myself. But it is not likely. I have spent much time meditating on
my desires, studying what is known about human reactions and
psychology (which is not a hell of a lot when all is said and done;
the human mind is mysterious quagmire), studying my own mind and soul.
I probably know my own mind and heart and soul better than anyone else
in the world. I probably know my own self more than most know their
own selves. I certainly feel that I know myself better than you do,
Mr Jacobs.
My view of my desires is probably not completely objective. But I
honestly doubt that anybody else's account of my mind would be less
subjective.
For one thing, I have no agenda in examining my desires, other than a
desire for self-knowledge and learning. I have no reason to prove to
myself that I am not evil -- I'm a Gnostic, and have it on the
authority of the Deity that I am a being of It's creation, and neither
entirely good nor entirely evil -- that I am, indeed, what I am, and
have free will.
I don't care whether I have dominant feelings, or submissive feelings.
Whatever is in me is part of me, and I accept it. To me, there is no
moral value to it. Feelings exist, and I am interested in teaching
myself what my own feelings are.
I don't care whether I enjoy pain for its own sake or for the sake of
d&s. I am merely interested in discovering the truth. You, on the
other hand, seem to have an interest in proving that I am *really*
into d&s and that everything else is secondary.
I can assure you that that is not true of me. It completely ignores
the purely physical side of sadomasochism.
I think that the point can be best made from the point of view of the
pure painslut, one of the clearest and simplest forms of masochism.
The Pure Painslut (a term I just invented, thus can define any way I
choose) is herein defined as someone who seeks out pain solely for the
physiological reactions that it engenders.
I know several, off the top of my head. Many of them do other forms
of BDSM as well. But Elle and I, to name two, have both been known to
seek out pain purely to get endorphins, purely for the rush, purely
because it feels good.
Mr Jacobs, your model does not account for Painslutism, which I think
you will find to be much more common than you suspect, and thus cannot
be complete.
My model is still evolving. It is complex and intertwined, and
different for every human being.
- Ian
Jon Jacobs
>In article <3dcrhu$4...@crl10.crl.com>, jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) wrote:
>
>> In article <m3047-211294170350@blv-p m3...@halcyon.com (Fred Morris) writes:
>> >In article <3d1q30$2...@crl4.crl.com>, jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Suffice it to say that I have
>> >> said clearly over and over again that there are no
doubt a few people who
>> >> believe that they are interested only in sadism and masochism who are
>> >> correct and not fooling themselves, although our and everyone else's
>> >> research suggests that this is not a large group.
>
>Yep, you have.
>
>> >The question that Jon can't answer is: is a.s.b. representative of the rest
>> >of his population?
>>
>> Sure Jon can answer that. Several hundred thousand people read this
>> group.
>
>Considerably less post.
Precisely. I don't know what you think that means, though. In any case,
they are the people I am writing to.
>> About the only element that distinguishes them
>> is that they use computers and are therefore probably younger, more male,
>> and more likely to be in or near college than the general population.
>> The group used for _Different Loving_ was skewed pretty much the same
>> way.
>
>Presumably Jon got those stats from an ftp site; congratulations, Jon!
>Care to publish the demographics you use for your book to the 'net, so we
>all don't have to go out and buy it?
WE didn't use any explicit and intentional demographic sample. In fact,
I don't think that any such sample really makes any difference in
studying minority sexualities, since getting honest answers from a large
group is impossible. WE relied on in-depth and sympathetic interviews.
In doing so, I believe that we got the most honest information possible.
>I wonder. If we took a public poll here on a.s.b., probably nobody would
>answer. he he he. But if I look at people's posts, it seems to me that the
>vectors of B&D, S&M and D&S are all significant.
Those are distinctions that you insist on.
>> >> I am not the one who is blinded, son.
>
>Not that I give a rat's ass, old fuck.
In that case, you are spending a great deal of time doing something that
you don't care a rat's ass about.
>> >> You have to understand that
>> >> someone's view of themselves and of what they are not doing is not the
>> >> last word on the matter.
>
>How nice of you to share your own self-doubt with us, sir!
Really the best you can do?
>> >> I have no idea about you in particular
>
>And I sir, have no idea how you are in your realm -- for this is *not* your
>realm -- but I would hope the ethos you have expressed here concerning the
>primacy of the law over custom and friendship, ignoramic disavowal of
>custom on the grounds that the law is all that matters, does not therein
>hold sway.
Well, I can't decipher most of that. What I can understand, however, has
nothing to do with this discussion. Nevertheless, if you are railing
over the fact that I insist that the "custom" of stealing intellectual
property must unconsensually submit to the law aainst it, then I plead
guilty.
Jon Jacobs
Elf Sternberg
Please, Jon, your arrogance has once again blinded you to the
reality that we, your supposed sounding boards for your "superior" point
of view, are as active, and IMHO, more successful, in reaching the reader-
ship of alt.sex.bondage than you puport to be. We write for the lurkers
just as much as you do. Here's hoping that you continue to make an ass
of yourself for some time to come.
Elf !!!
--
e...@halcyon.com Another victim of involuntary performance art.
Public key available http://www.halcyon.com/elf/elf_sternberg.html
Alex Martelli
...
>I suppose I'm curious about how you think that such a sampling
>bias would actually affect the heuristic value of the data? As
>all science is always theory laden, I can see that there could be
>a great deal of value in criticizing his hypotheses and the assumptions
>that he makes, but unless we have a theory about how these sample
>biases would unreasonably skew his findings, raising such issues
>adds little to our understanding of the issues.
We do have such a theory. For a very elementary introduction, I would
suggest a classic, Mueller, Schuessler and Costner, "Statistical
Reasoning in Sociology". For a short popularization of two
developments for very sparse data I suggest A. Martelli, "Un Modello
probabilistico della lingua italiana", IBM Italia Note d'Informatica
13, 24-35, particularly the section on interpolation and the Appendix;
for several more rigorous treatments see the references of this
article. *All* issues of subjective uncertainty can be expressed in
the mathematical terms of probability theory (my favourite author on
the subject is B. De Finetti, although this may be chauvinism on my
part, and Americans without biases against utility theory may prefer F.
Ramsey and L. Savage); although we may normally prefer non-numerical
expressions for purposes of discourse, this will not affect the
underlying theory.
I suspect Hound Dog's culture on this subject is quite comparable to
mine, and the point of my response to him was just to throw doubt on
whether, as he had suggested, the (acknowledged) self-selection
sampling biases on the set of JJ's subjects could skew their value
as predictors of the a.s.b population; I thought they wouldn't.
Of course, new data has since emerged that changes the picture. We
have specifically heard from STella, who is in both sets and also a
rather prominent exponent of the style of S/M practice that is free
from "exchange of power"; her response was excluded from JJ's book.
If a researcher deliberately omits data points which don't fit his
preconceived hypotheses -- well -- let me just say we have a word for
that. I hope this possibility will lead readers to re-evaluate for
themselves the believability of "research" thus tainted.
Alex
--
____ Alex Martelli, Bologna, Italia -- mailbox permanently overfull!
\SM/___
Charles Haynes
>In article <m3047-231294081302@blv-pm0 m3...@halcyon.com (Fred Morris) writes:
...
>>Not that I give a rat's ass, old fuck.
>In that case, you are spending a great deal of time doing something that
>you don't care a rat's ass about.
...
Perhaps he's writing for the readers rather than the posters.
-- Charles
Jon Jacobs
>In article <3dt7fj$h...@crl5.crl.com>, Jon Jacobs <jac...@crl.com> wrote:
>>In article <m3047-271294175514@blv-pm m3...@halcyon.com (Fred Morris) writes:
>
>>This seems like a fine place to point out once again that I know the
>>difference and that it is the readers, not the posters, whom I am
>>generally addressing (there are some posters who are exceptions to this
>>rule). Usually, I am using the posters to talk to the readers. The
>>posters are allowing themselves to be used. Here's hoping they keep it up.
>
> Please, Jon, your arrogance has once again blinded you to the
>reality that we, your supposed sounding boards for your "superior" point
>of view, are as active, and IMHO, more successful, in reaching the reader-
>ship of alt.sex.bondage than you puport to be. We write for the lurkers
>just as much as you do. Here's hoping that you continue to make an ass
>of yourself for some time to come.
Oh, you poor baby! Your little feelings are so discumbobulated that you
aren't even paying attention!
Can you perhaps point to an example of where I have made any evaluation
of how successfull "we"--obviously the imperial usage--are being in
reading the readership of alt.sex.bondage? Oh, dear, but I think not.
for that matter, of how successful I "purport" to be? I think not also.
Still, I appreciate your frustration at being best able to assail that
which did not happen.
Jon Jacobs
Jon Jacobs
>In article <3dumbl$m...@crl2.crl.com>, Jon Jacobs <jac...@crl.com> wrote:
>
>...
>
>>>Not that I give a rat's ass, old fuck.
>
>>In that case, you are spending a great deal of time doing something that
>>you don't care a rat's ass about.
>
>...
>
>Perhaps he's writing for the readers rather than the posters.
>
If so, then one can only assume that he gives a rat's ass.
You're trying too hard, Charles.
Jon Jacobs
Xiphias Gladius
>Xiphias Gladius (i...@cs.brandeis.edu) wrote:
>Edit? Sure! :-) Actually, I wouldn't mind helping out with the research
>a bit, to be honest... WONDERFUL to see such well thought-out,
>articulate presentation of what's so often hard to articulate...
*blush* Thanks!
Cool! Now I got editors, and a catchy title, if I can use, "How
Standard is Your Deviation?", and a research assistant; all I need now
is a premise and a thesis and a publisher!
- Ian
Xiphias Gladius
>i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) writes:
>>There are people whose reasons for sceneing are combinations of the
>>above, too.
>...and then there are those for whom it _changes_, as quite clearly it
>changes for _you_, from what you have written, depending on many
>factors, but, crucially, on one's partner[s] and the relationship[s]
>with them.
Well, yes . . . on those factors, and on what kind of day I had, and
on temperature of the room, and phase of the moon, and time of day,
and so on, ad nauseum.
>You appear to me to have an even wider range than myself, which IS
>pretty amazing:-) -- I don't get much from just-bondage, while you
>do -- but maybe it's just that I never had a partner who _was_ into
>bondage per se, without pain and/or power play going on at the same
>time
:) Someone I know, who will remain anonymous, mentioned that, if
you're not careful, that may change on your next trip to the States. . .
Well, I *am* into bondage for bondage's sake, but I'm less into that
than most other kinks. It *is* a kink of mine, just one that hasn't
seen much play to date.
That *is* in the process of changing, due to the aforementioned
anonymous individual.
>I do wonder how you perceived the scene at that party in Boston where I
>bottomed to you and several other people... I remember you pretty well
>because you were in front most of the time, where I could see you,
>while Davo, Marchesa and topazzz mostly stayed behind me, seeing to my
>back and buttocks by various means fair and foul:-). Was I getting off
>on the sheer pain? Submitting to, what, half a dozen people at once,
>or more? Getting off on an overload of being the center of attention
>of so many wonderful people at once, even without counting the ones
>watching? I've got my own ideas about what worked so wonderfully there,
>of course, but am curious about other participants' perceptions...!
My perception of that scene was that you were:
1. primarily basking in being the center of attention.
2. having thoughts run through your head to the effect of, "Wow!
Aren't I wonderful? I can command the attention of SIX TOPS!"
3. Trancing, because of the ammount of pain you were getting,
especially when Marchessa and I were setting up a rhythm you could
fall into.
4. Absolutely drinking in the energy, and the sheer feeling of
community that was caused. I know that *I* was really enjoying the
feeling of cooperative effort, and that I really liked working with
so many people for a common goal.
One question, though. . . were you *submitting*? I coulda sworn that
at least a couple of your tops were submitting to you while others
were domming you while others were domming other tops, and at least
one was subbing to one of the other tops and subbing to you, while sie
was domming you.
I think that *that* scene would have caused a stroke in anyone who
believes in simple models of power exchange . . .
- Ian
Jon Jacobs
>an5...@anon.penet.fi (<-Inquisitor->) writes:
> ...
>>>>And are there any people who are in the opposite situation... using
>>>>power exchange to deny the fact that what they're really seeking is to
>>>>give or receive pain?
>>>
>>>I can't say no for certain, but I have never known of any, and the
>
>>Cf. Guy Baldwin, Ties that Bind, 1993 Daedalus, pp. 47 s., 59 s., 82.
I haven't seen that one, but I'll certainly take a look at it.
Jon Jacobs
Jon Jacobs
>I wonder what the results are when interviews are done by counselors
>who believe BDSM to be a sign of underlaying emotional problem.
>When they probe deep into people's motivations, beyond what they
>say and what they consciously believe, do they find people who are
>unsuccessfully trying to work through issues of fear, control, and
>self-esteem ? People who are just fooling themselves with the enticing
>fake of D&S, and won't ever be really happy until they put aside D&S
>and resolve their real issues ?
Actually, that hasn't been my experience at all. They're not nearly that
analytical, as pityful as that approach would be.
A good example is Dr. Jo Ann Denko, who is an expert on enemas and who
invented the name clysmophelia, which is now generally used for the
eroticization of enemas. Her view, after having counseled people with
that interest, was pretty succinct: she said they're sick. Not they're
fooling themselves. Not they're working out fears. They're sick.
There are lots of reasons why we all do what we do, and the only thing
that really maters is whether the way we work out our emotional
contradictions is good for us (and others) or not. Working them out in
good ways involves understanding them and the ability to be truthful with
ourselves. Jo Ann does't care about that. I do.
Jon Jacobs
Peter McDermott
i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) wrote:
>I'm a Gnostic, and have it on the
>authority of the Deity that I am a being of It's creation, and neither
>entirely good nor entirely evil -- that I am, indeed, what I am, and
>have free will.
Hrmph. You're deluded, junior.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist. This _could_ get addictive.)
Jon Jacobs
>In article <3dtha1$6...@news.cs.brandeis.edu>,
>i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) wrote:
>
>>I'm a Gnostic, and have it on the
>>authority of the Deity that I am a being of It's creation, and neither
>>entirely good nor entirely evil -- that I am, indeed, what I am, and
>>have free will.
>
>Hrmph. You're deluded, junior.
>
>(Sorry, I couldn't resist. This _could_ get addictive.)
Aha! I've almost got McDermott (g)!
Jon Jacobs
Ynotrinity
Jon Jacobs
>Now, I'm attempting to follow this thread, a task made difficult by
>the quirks of my newsserver, as well as by the quirks of Mr Jacobs's
>logic.
>
>actually d&s, a proposition that I find untenable.
No, dear. The assertion that you find untenable is yours, not mine.
What I actually _said_ is that in _Different Loving_ my co-authors and I
chose _not_ to become involved in endless dithering about distinctions in
momenclature and decided to call the entire area d&s. We also stated
this explicitly and explained our reasons. See?
>If this is not what Mr Jacobs is saying, please feel free to hit 'n'
>now, as I am going to attempt to provide a counterexample in the
>remainder of this post.
I most humbly follow your advice.
Jon Jacobs
Fred Morris
> There's no doubt that a genuine power exchange is difficult to achieve.
Perhaps this can be resolved existentially, if it's not a conscious
exchange of power in the sense of an economy. We only consent after the
fact to be alive on Planet Earth, and we could take our lives own lives,
most of us, at most times in our lives. If I substitute "recognition of the
realities of place" for "genuine power exchange", what Jon says makes sense
to me; and I pass no moral judgement on it.
> Power exchange requires someone who genuinely wants to be controlled and
> someone else who is capable of controlling by the power of his or her
> personality, his or her dominant personality.
See what I mean? Jon won't deign to admit to understanding, but the readers
may understand: "Recognition of the power of place requires someone who
genuinely wants to be controlled and someone else who..."
--
Fred Morris
m3...@halcyon.com
Jon Jacobs
>Various people (including myself) have touched on self-selection. I wanted
>to point out that the internet has always excelled at that -- at forming a
>critical mass from diaspora. Best articulation I can get my hands on
>rapidly is from _The Whole Internet.._, and I can't find the quote (oops),
>but essentially the thesis is that critical mass is two.
>
>The people that post to a.s.b. are different from the readers.
>
>The people who post to a.s.b. for the whole world to see are probably
>somewhat different than the people who would agree to be interviewed in a
>sympathetic manner for a book; and furthermore posting to usenet invites,
>as we are all painfully aware, flameage of a personal nature.
That's true to an extent, but there's also an enormous crossover in the
self-selection. More
than half of our interviewees for _Different Loving_, for example, came
to our attention because they posted either here, on Compuserve, or in
some other electronic medium.
>In the past there has been some mention of the incongruity of submissives
>posting to a.s.b. at all, on the theory that submissive == shy/tender.
If any of that confusion about submissives has come from people who claim
to have experience, that's particularly frightning.
>Is there some difference in communication or negotiation skills, or "safety
>in numbers", or ? Well, Jon wrote a book, maybe he'll deign to tell us.
Well, as I said, the two groups are not so separate. FWIW, I can tell
you that, with a few notable exceptions, the people whom we approached
about being interviewed were very open and required little or no
convincing to talk to us. One reason for this was that most of the
people whom we interviewed had either heard of one or the other of us or
had been approached by people whom they knew and trusted, who vouchedsafe
for our reliability.
>Jon, I hope you don't go away; I don't doubt that you know a lot about D&S
>or that you have a lot of general knowledge. But we have to make a deal: if
>you call me "son" one more time, I have to call you "rotting corpse". ;-)
So is mine, and I don't much care what you call me, as long, as they say,
as it's not late for supper.
And trust me, as long as I have the time, I'm not going anyplace. This
is too important and too much fun.
>(my father's dead) Given your outlook, then pending your permission I will
>refrain from doing so (actually I would find it amusing in an extremely
>silly sort of way). I don't know. I'm trying to set a new tone here, and
>probably screwing it up bad. People who survive on a.s.b. either like
>getting burns or wear asbestos gloves... Actually, my guess is you've
>survived your baptism by fire. Am I right?
Well, son, I never have understood why people don't understand what a
good time I have doing this. Some of them seem to believe that I get
excited or angry. They don't know me. After what I've been through in
the last 49 years, the flamers around here I eat for lunch.
Jon Jacobs
Fred Morris
> In article <3dmq6b$g...@news.cs> i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) writes:
> >Now, I'm attempting to follow this thread, a task made difficult by
> >the quirks of my newsserver, as well as by the quirks of Mr Jacobs's
> >logic.
> >
> >As far as I can tell, one of his points seems to be that all BDSM is
> >actually d&s, a proposition that I find untenable.
> No, dear. The assertion that you find untenable is yours, not mine.
> What I actually _said_ is that in _Different Loving_ my co-authors and I
> chose _not_ to become involved in endless dithering about distinctions in
> momenclature and decided to call the entire area d&s. We also stated
> this explicitly and explained our reasons. See?
But Sir, if that's all you're saying, why are you telling us who are into
BDSM that if we're not into D&S we're fooling ourselves? Time pressure?
--
Fred Morris
m3...@halcyon.com
Alex Martelli
...
>the last 49 years, the flamers around here I eat for lunch.
Cannibalism is notoriously unsafe.
Jon Jacobs
>Look -- I'm not quoting a thing! New material, folks.
Now that's a relief!
>Power exchanges happen every day. You have a job, don't you? Do you ever
>ride in a car when someone else is driving (don't think that's power
>exchange? don't ride in a car with *my* mother driving!)? You have an
>internet account, don't you? No, to call something a "power exchange" and
>have it mean something, it's got to be more than that. If it isn't then
>you're back to something analogous to simplistic Freudianism and everything
>is explained by potty training or improper separation from the mother or
>oedipal guilt. Spare me the coffee shop philosophy; mind if I piss on your
>crumpets instead? No? O.k.; well have an insipid day and press n now.
Of course it has to be more than that. It has to be intentional and
self-aware. Probably, to fit our context here, it also has to be erotic
in intent, at least to a degree. I suspect that we agree on all of this.
>I haven't read Jon's book, but those who have and reported here seem to
>concur in their impression that the book focuses on what we here call D&S
>as opposed to B&D, S&M, LMNOP.
That is entirely incorrect. _Different Loving_ deals with all the areas
that you mean by the initials you use, as well as a large number of
fetish activities that are often but not always involved with them. What
we _do_ do in _Different Loving_ is refer to most or all of the
activities that I expect you mean by the initials you use by the single
sobriquet of d&s.
Jon Jacobs
Jon Jacobs
>In article <3dcrhu$4...@crl10.crl.com>, jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) wrote:
>
> >> You have to understand that
> >> someone's view of themselves and of what they are not doing is not the
> >> last word on the matter.
>
>Then what is?
I'm not certain what form an answer to that question ought to take. It's
more important to know that often self-serving statements about the reasons
we do things are not necessarily full and honest explanations than to be
able to express a philosophically satisfying answer to what is. The
important process is to try to get as close as possible to understanding
ourselves and our real motives and needs so that we can meet them as well
as possible--or change them if we find them to be self-destructive or
find that they make us miserable.
>I can assure you, sir, that I *am* interested in domination and
>submisssion, from both sides. I can assure you, too, sir, that I can
>use pain and bondage to facilitate those, as you say.
I know that you say that. I have na particular reason to disbelieve
you--nor to believe you, either. Obviously, I can't--and I
don't--comment on any particular person's level of self-knowledge unless
I know them well and in a context that bgives me the information that I
need to make such a jedgment. But that fact doesn't change the reality
that in any group a lot of people are fooling themselves.
Jon Jacobs
Peter McDermott
jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) wrote:
>>Hrmph. You're deluded, junior.
>>
>>(Sorry, I couldn't resist. This _could_ get addictive.)
>
>Aha! I've almost got McDermott (g)!
It's the holiday season Jon. The boredom always makes me
even _more_ mischevious. ;-)
Fred Morris
S&M is a member of the set D&S.
PE is a member of the set D&S.
I assume that the intersection of S&M and PE is non-null, but I do not
grant that they are identical or that one is a subset of the other:
the intersection of S&M and PE is non-null.
there is no identity between PE and S&M.
neither is a subset of the other.
Therefore you lose me and quite a few others when you claim that the
intersection of the subsets S&M and PE is therefore non-null in all cases.
That is a reduction to absurdity and proves that either the construction is
invalid or that we don't agree on the behavior of our set operators.
In article <3e99b3$p...@crl5.crl.com>, jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) wrote:
> In article <m3047-281294181924@blv-p m3...@halcyon.com (Fred Morris) writes:
> >Look -- I'm not quoting a thing! New material, folks.
> Now that's a relief!
;-)
> >I haven't read Jon's book, but those who have and reported here seem to
> >concur in their impression that the book focuses on what we here call D&S
> >as opposed to B&D, S&M, LMNOP.
>
> That is entirely incorrect. _Different Loving_ deals with all the areas
> that you mean by the initials you use, as well as a large number of
> fetish activities that are often but not always involved with them. What
> we _do_ do in _Different Loving_ is refer to most or all of the
> activities that I expect you mean by the initials you use by the single
> sobriquet of d&s.
O.K., I guess I'm just not too trusting of a guy; for instance, I would
question the motives of someone who trained someone to shout "FIRE" the way
ordinary people use "yes, SIR" and then took them to a crowded theatre..
You've contributed to this distrust in a variety of general ways; perhaps I
have read your refusal to accede to our conventions incorrectly and I
should grant you a more twisted sense of humor than I have, or the complete
right to be an obnoxious asshole. Not very dommly of you sir, but to hell
with convention, I say! heh.
In one specific instance you have contributed to this distrust in a direct
fashion. You state that you use D&S as an umbrella term; all right then,
you can't get on here and claim we are all fooling ourselves if we're not
into power exchange because we're into D&S, because either we're not
fooling ourselves or we're not into D&S. You can resolve this contradiction
by accepting that for this forum we require a little more precision in
naming our kinks or by rescinding the statement that being into D&S
necessarily requires power exchange; those are the only two options I see
that meet the collective standards of liguistic precision. (Is that one of
the non-causative but differentiating features between "predominantly"
S&Mers and the more general D&S-interested population? I know both my S.O.
and my self are. Maybe there is something to the correlation, given our
almost obsessive interest in verbalization and negotiation..)
Other than that, you have my complete and utter permission to be as
obnoxious as hell! :-)
--
Fred Morris
m3...@halcyon.com
Laurelie
Well, I suppose I'm going to get "juniored" and "son"ed for this, but
I'm going to disagree with Jon Jacobs. He wrote in part:
> What you're ignoring here--and you seem very sincere and thoughtful about
> it--is the reality of control. Rosie is trying to tell you that even
> though, certainly, she has the physical power to leave--although she says
> that she knows that Donald would bring her back--she will not do so
> because Donald, in fact, controls her. She is certain of that fact.
Actually, I'm not ignoring what Rosie's said. I think that Rosie
described a perfectly valid form of power exchange, and I went
on to comment, in the part that you deleted, that Rosie's way was
only *one* way of acheiving a power exchange, but it certainly was a
total power exchange if, in fact, she is unable to break her promise
to leave him.
What you seem to ignore is that Rosie's reality is no more factually based
than any one else's. Rosie is certain of the that she cannot leave
Donald. . . despite the fact that no legal authority would make her stay.
In fact, most of the legal authorities would try to *stop* Donald from
bringing her back. That is a fact. Rosie's mental construct ignores that
fact because she feels internally controlled and therefore it becomes a
reality for her. Perhaps an objective reality but only because of her own
internal willingness to accept it. This is not different than how I might
feel with Rage. While the fact of the matter may be that I can utter a
safeword for any reason at all and control the scene, I am certain of the
fact that I cannot do this. I have plenty of experience with doing things
for Rage I objectively *hate*, and yet, because they are not causing me
mental or physical damage, I feel unable to stop them. The reality is,
of course, that I can utter a safeword and Rage would never really know
if it was because I was controlling the scene or genuinely communicating
to him a problem. But my mental construct is that I *am* submitting and
that I cannot do it. . . it becomes a reality for me. Every bit as
objective a reality as Rosie's.
Certainly, Rosie exchanges more power than I do. But she does not do
so more genuinely than I do. Much of what you have said in this and
other threads has led me to believe that what you are referring to,
when you say "genuine power exchange" is one in which the submissive is
brainwashed to the point that her/his consent is no longer relevant in any
context. It is one where her/his willingness to submit is replaced by a
mental incapacity NOT to submit. In Rage's words, "What? It can only
be a geniune if it's nonconsensual?" The example you gave of a submissive
who is in a damaging d/s relationship only being able to be released upon
the dominant's initiative is chilling. It conceives not a power *exchange*
involving consent, but a power *trap*.
The world is not a constant
place. The stable loving master that I chose to own me today could
encounter some traumatic event in his future that could make him abusive,
maniacle and insane. The world is full of unforseen circumstances. To
say that the exchange is not genuine unless you accept that such bad things
could happen to you and that you'll take whatever comes is like saying that
a submissive does not truly exchange power unless he/she agrees to risk
death. That's certainly a total exchange, but it does not diminish the
reality or wisdom of less extreme exchanges.
Furthermore, there are genuine power exchanges in all walks of life which are
not total and complete the way that Rosie's situation is thought to be.
For example, the government has power
over me. No one could deny that. I exchanged certain (but not all) power
to the government in return for the privlige of living here under it's laws.
Certainly, I can move to another place. That ability to "safeword" at any
time doesn't change the fact that the government has power over me because
I allow it and because I don't like the alternative. My school has power
over me, my parents have power over me by way of the fact that I don't
want to displease them. All of that is very genuine.
> >But if I bought Rosie's reasoning, I would have to conclude that Rage and
> >I never had a power exchange except for the few times we had a suspended
> >safeword scene. While those non-safeword experiences were intense,
> >they did not produce a different headspace or feel of helplessness than
> >any other time we've ever played. In fact, the most helpless feeling
> >and deepest scenes we've ever done have all been with safewords. (FWIW, Rage
> >and I are almost always "in scene" as it were, because we consider ourselves
> >to be lifestyle. . .however, I don't have a better vocabulary to describe
> >those times in our lives when we are most intensely behaving as dominant and
> >submissive except for the words "playing" or "scening.")
>
> There's no doubt that a genuine power exchange is difficult to achieve.
> >From what you say above, I can only conclude that, as you suggest
> ironically, you have not in fact been in a power-exchange relationship.
> Maybe that's fine for you, but you ought at least to consider whether you
> might want more than you have.
Well first of all, I did not suggest that. I suggested that if I bought
Rosie's reasoning, I would have to conclude that I'd never had a genuine
power-exchange *except for those times when we did not use safewords*.
Now, I'm not sure exactly what in the above paragraph led you to believe
that I have not in fact been in a power-exchange relationship. Is it
because my safeword scenes were just as intense and helpless feeling as
my non-safeword scenes? (challenging your notion that you can't have a
mental feeling of being controlled like Rosie does with safewords?) Is it
because we lack a vocabulary to better describe our most primal moments?
> Power exchange requires someone who genuinely wants to be controlled and
> someone else who is capable of controlling by the power of his or her
> personality, his or her dominant personality. That's the minimum, of
> course--ot requires a great deal more, too.
I certainly want to be controlled (and since I am not in a brainwashed state
of feeling that I cannot leave if I need to, it is a conscious consent and
desire). Rage certainly has the capacity to control me by force of
his personality. He considers it a personal failure if he has to touch
someone in order to get them to submit to him.
I realize that you very politely offered your perspective on this issue
to me, and for that I am appreciative. The manner with which you
dismiss my own experiences and feelings on my submission, however, is
symptomatic of the problem you have of telling other people what they
are "really" feeling, thinking or wanting.
The power exchange that Rage and I have is so genuine that safewords or
the lack thereof are really irrelevant. Allow me to give you a glimpse
into my reality of d/s with Rage. When I am with Rage I am always
conscious of the fact that I am owned by him. I am also conscious of
the fact that I am owned as myself. I do not have to pretend to be
someone else. . . I am intelligent, strong, capable, and still. . .very
much his slave. When he gives me an order, I am doing it before I
have time to think about it. My brain obeys before my thoughts.
When he has me do something I hate, I do not try to get away. I cannot
control it and I don't want to. He can defile me, give me away, take
from me, give to me, hurt me, please me, nourish me, deprive me, and inflict
all that the beast within him would have. I gave him this power because
I am safe. He wants to know that I am safe. He wants to keep me healthy.
He wants to keep me. He does not just own me, he loves me.
And in the raw of our exchange, I can feel myself falling down down
inside. Until I am but a shell for him. In this state I do not cry
when he hurts me or even make any noise at all. . .because I am not there
in some sense. I have handed over my body and I am floating on the end
of some metaphoric leash in the space of
our relationship. And it is wholly religious. I am exposed, and opened,
and released from the reins of body, choices, and decisions. There is
but one thing I can focus on, and that is pleasing him.
Sometimes, on rare and beautiful occasions it moves beyond
that. I see that he is raw, exposed, and opened
too. I see that he has let the beast in him out. I see that he is
vulnerable to me too. I see the sadist, the monster, the cruelty in him
and he is taking risks too. Can I love him knowing what is inside him?
The answer, of course, is yes. I see that with each grain of power I grant
him he becomes greedy for more. I love it. I give him more. I hate it. I
give him more. I find myself floating up and out and beyond.
To a place where sex doesn't matter, power doesn't matter, nothing
matters but us. D/s is the key to the door. And beyond that door I see
the beauty of intimacy. It's a place in which I envision a circle. A
circle made up of Rage and I consuming one another eternally. . . his
feet in my mouth and mine in his, forever consuming, becoming each other,
becoming whole. Inside the circle is all our power. Power that we both
put there. The power that I surrendered and upon which he draws. And
all that matters anymore is that I can no longer tell where I end and
where he begins.
If that is not genuine, then I will settle for this enticing fake.
Sincerely,
Laurel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to ad...@anon.penet.fi.
topazzz
>If that is not real, then I will settle for this enticing fake.
That was an absolutely beautiful, eloquent and powerful portrayal of a
relationship that reaches into the ecstasy of D/s. Laurel spoke of a
relationship beyond the physical, beyond the mental, and even beyond the
spiritual. But she spoke of a relationship of two strong people who are
both there because they want to be and they want to be with each other.
I echo Laurel, if that is not real then we should all live in such unreal
bliss, held only by the bonds of our own making not by the dictates of
another.
I live a lifestyle as total as Marchesa wishes it to be. It is her whims
and her needs that concern me, not those of Jon Jacobs. For her, our
lifestyle is total. She does not want to be bothered with the petty details
of my day to day behaviors. That is her choice. I follow her rules. It
seems Laurel that JJ would dictate to your Master and my Mistress what
they should be doing with their property and how they should be doing it.
I know Marchesa would not take kindly to anyone questioning her style of
dominance. It would seem that JJ does not respect our owners!!
topazzz
Totally, joyously, REALLY, obediently, adoringly owned by
Marchesa Megan Sensei & Lord Alessandro
Xiphias Gladius
>In article <3dtha1$6...@news.cs.brandeis.edu>,
>i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) wrote:
>>I'm a Gnostic, and have it on the
>>authority of the Deity that I am a being of It's creation, and neither
>>entirely good nor entirely evil -- that I am, indeed, what I am, and
>>have free will.
>Hrmph. You're deluded, junior.
>(Sorry, I couldn't resist. This _could_ get addictive.)
Here's a theory. . . Peter McDermott really *is* Jon Jacobs.
How else could he imitate Jacobs's style so accurately?
No, wait a minute. McDermott *can't* be Jacobs. He only quoted the
bit of my post relevant to his response.
- Ian
Peter McDermott
i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) wrote:
>>Hrmph. You're deluded, junior.
>
>>(Sorry, I couldn't resist. This _could_ get addictive.)
>
>Here's a theory. . . Peter McDermott really *is* Jon Jacobs.
>
>How else could he imitate Jacobs's style so accurately?
Wrong again, junior. Jon Jacobs is me. If I've explained this once... ;)
Jon Jacobs
>In article <3dt5vi$h...@crl5.crl.com>, jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) wrote:
>
>> There's no doubt that a genuine power exchange is difficult to achieve.
>
>Perhaps this can be resolved existentially, if it's not a conscious
>exchange of power in the sense of an economy. We only consent after the
>fact to be alive on Planet Earth, and we could take our lives own lives,
>most of us, at most times in our lives. If I substitute "recognition of the
>realities of place" for "genuine power exchange", what Jon says makes sense
>to me; and I pass no moral judgement on it.
I think--sorrect me if I'm wrong--that the following comes under my "I'll
say it twice and then not any more" rule.
We agree. Power exchange is only relevant to this discussion if it is
intentional, self-aware power exchange for an erotic purpose. Yes,
nearly every personal transaction is a power exchange, but that's not
relevant to this discussion.
>> Power exchange requires someone who genuinely wants to be controlled and
>> someone else who is capable of controlling by the power of his or her
>> personality, his or her dominant personality.
>
>See what I mean? Jon won't deign to admit to understanding, but the readers
>may understand: "Recognition of the power of place requires someone who
>genuinely wants to be controlled and someone else who..."
Fred, you need to read all the messages. Your "discovery" was something
I mentioned long ago in this discussion.
Jon Jacobs
Jon Jacobs
Oh, no! I'm not you! You're me! And I'm cool as hell, too!
No, Peter, that's not the truth. We should tell the truth.
Peter has attended my School For Masters here in Atlanta, in which I tell
my pupils exactly what words a master should say, give out slave
contracts, and otherwise take away their rights to decide what they
want. It's a very full school, and financing is available.
Jon Jacobs
wi...@wizvax.com
<< snip >>
> Oh, no! I'm not you! You're me! And I'm cool as hell, too!
I think that's supposed to be "cool as fuck!"
> Peter has attended my School For Masters here in Atlanta, in which I tell
> my pupils exactly what words a master should say, give out slave
> contracts, and otherwise take away their rights to decide what they
> want. It's a very full school, and financing is available.
Oh, so *you're* Master Jim! Well, where the hell were you when Alex and
Peter and Bill and Dan and I were all juberating about that damned class
of yours, huh, huh?
So, how much does it cost, anyhow? I could probably use a few pointers,
myself...
+======================================================================+
Mistress Katherine (No wannas, please; Equus is QUITE enough
01/06/95 for me to deal with!)
--
a...@wizvax.com (Automated help)
wi.a...@wizvax.com (ACS Administrator)
uunet!wizvax.com!wi.admin
To reply to this, email to the wi number in the from line.
Jon Jacobs
>Jon Jacobs (jac...@crl.com) wrote:
>
><< snip >>
>
>> Oh, no! I'm not you! You're me! And I'm cool as hell, too!
>
>I think that's supposed to be "cool as fuck!"
Nonononono! If I were cool as fuck, I'd be Peter, you see (g)? But I'm cool
as hell, which is at least as cool but completely different!
>> Peter has attended my School For Masters here in Atlanta, in which I tell
>> my pupils exactly what words a master should say, give out slave
>> contracts, and otherwise take away their rights to decide what they
>> want. It's a very full school, and financing is available.
>
>Oh, so *you're* Master Jim! Well, where the hell were you when Alex and
>Peter and Bill and Dan and I were all juberating about that damned class
>of yours, huh, huh?
I was hiding in the back. I was afraid that the true exclusive pain
folks were going to beat me up!
Jon Jacobs
Jon Jacobs
>In article <3e4145$p...@crl.crl.com>, jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) wrote:
>
>> >Now, I'm attempting to follow this thread, a task made difficult by
>> >the quirks of my newsserver, as well as by the quirks of Mr Jacobs's
>> >logic.
>> >
>> >As far as I can tell, one of his points seems to be that all BDSM is
>> >actually d&s, a proposition that I find untenable.
>
>> No, dear. The assertion that you find untenable is yours, not mine.
>> What I actually _said_ is that in _Different Loving_ my co-authors and I
>> chose _not_ to become involved in endless dithering about distinctions in
>> momenclature and decided to call the entire area d&s. We also stated
>> this explicitly and explained our reasons. See?
>
>But Sir, if that's all you're saying, why are you telling us who are into
>BDSM that if we're not into D&S we're fooling ourselves? Time pressure?
Two different issues here, son, although they are certainly somewhat
related. The first is the nomenclature used in _Different Loving_. The
second is one of my basic points, that available research and experience
say that pure pain enthusiasts--that is, exclusive sadomasochists--are
rare.
Jon Jacobs
Peter McDermott
jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) wrote:
Financing Jon? I wish you'd told me that. I wouldn't have had to
wait on you hand and foot for all those months if I'd known, getting
all those luscious subs ready for the demonstrations and carrying
your whips about all the time.
And it isn't _that_ full. There was a vacancy for a few days last
March as I recall..