M/s, history and symbolism.
Bob King
though the idea was initially to find a an old flame. Specifically, one
I'd written in iambic pentameter, to show our new RT that she really
isn't being flamed. Not even Lynn, by Lynn's standards.
Have we mellowed?
I doubt it. It's more that flaming her is neither satisfying nor likely
to be sufficiently entertaining/instructive to others to be worth the
effort.
But as happens when one goes back and reviews history, as opposed to
what one remembers, one learns a thing or two.
It was something Steven S. Davis said in an aside during one of those
interminable threads generated by my drama with Leigh and Bill Majors
years ago that slapped me onto a new and somewhat less morose path.
------------
28 From: Steven S. Davis - view profile
Date: Tues, Sep 15 1998 12:00 am
Email: s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis)
Groups: soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm
M. Shirley Chong (eit...@crone.avalon.net) wrote:
: And then there is the waffling I see all the time! Subly Person A
: states: "yes, I would do anything my Master orders, even if it means
: killing myself or hurting someone else... Of course, -MY- Master
would
: never give me such an order." Well, that's hardly a ringing
endorsement
: from my point of view! Seems to me that it would be much more
impressive
: to say "well, yes, my Master just got out of jail because he ordered
his
: previous sub to stand stock still in the middle of the street while
he
: drove towards her--he miscalculated how good his brakes were. If my
: Master tells me to stand in the middle of the street so he can test
his
: brake job, I'll be out there. I've already made out my will and given
: two weeks' notice to my employer."
:
: Why not just say "I believe I would submit fully to any demand my
master
: makes, but I have carefully chosen a Master whom I believe will never
: make a demand I would find excessively dangerous or squicksome."
:
: I dunno. Maybe I lack a certain flair or sense of romance.
One of the things I've often noted in this sort of discussion is
that there are people who speak in a poetry of romantic ambience,
about feelings and desires and emotional connections, and there
are people who speak in a prose of details and obligations and
contigencies (my native tongue).
And the two groups generally annoy the hell out of each other.
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
The SSB Hompage: http://ssbb.home.ml.org/
The ASB/SSB Welcome: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/wel.htm
My homepage: http://links.magenta.com/lmnop/users/sd/sd.html
--------
Forgive my inability to quote properly, I opened the wrong browser...
Anyhoo, yeah, SSD summed up my life right there and I must have missed
it at the time. I miss SSD. And Spyral Fox, who's prominent in the
whole kerfuffle. But anyway, that and a couple other comments made here
and there by various people about how many dominants are concrete
thinkers who really really like things to be spelled out in words - not
hints, not allusions, not implications, but words with concrete,
agreed-upon meanings that I had to laugh.
Because that's one of several traits common the people with Aspergers
Syndrome, and it was in a conversation about bondage geeks. I wonder if
the "cure autism now" movement arose from folks who came here over the
years and were flamed because we weren't writing enough wank for their
tastes, or because posted JK's Rules For Submissives in support for
their words, posted exceptionally lame personals or referred to "the
scrolls" as holy writ.
I am apparently aspie. My slave-wife diagnosed me, so to speak. Not
officially, but her son is dxed and she's something of a local expert.
Anyway, I don't like ambiguity about things that are important, I don't
trust the reasoning of people who's primary form of intelligence is
emotional until they prove that their intuition is educated and can be
logically validated. For the longest time I assumed that that's what
everyone did, actually, but the Bush Administration has proved the
contrary - that emotional reasoning can exist in it's own little
vacuum. That's not a political position, by the by. I've had the same
issues with commies, SQO Catholics and both opponents and proponents of
the WTO.
Anyway, over the last several years, I've been mostly elsewhere and (it
seems at times), mostly talking at very stupid people without much
apparent effect. But from time to time, I'm asked where I learned to
reason as well as I do - and if the venue is appropriate, I admit that
it was here. This is where I learned to articulate my sense of ethics
and to explain why something was right or wrong - something quite
different than knowing or suspecting.
I learned at the rough hands of SSD and by Spyral Fox; ability to
summon up entire libraries to drop upon the unwitting from some pocket
universe still not entirely accessible by Google.
This is where I learned as well that projecting an air of Authority and
being authoritative are quite separate skill sets.
Anyway, life happened in the ordinary way for a while, one thing led to
another and I met my darling wife in 1999. Yep, just before the turn of
the century. We were married in 2000, so that I could get health
coverage. It seemed a distinct afterthought, because we tend to think
of "the moment" as being the first hug.
During all that, I pretty much practiced what I'd preached and what I'd
learned and found it to be mostly good. I also learned that what I'd
long said about myself was viscerally true in practice - I'm not a
Dominant, I'm a Master. I get no rush at all from encountering and
overcoming resistance, though when I need to, I can be quite effective
at doing so. But I do not have any trace of the "how dare you question
my Will in this matter, maggot" response. I'm a Master and an Owner,
not a dominant slave-breaker. I find there are enough broken folks
around that the demand exceeds the supply of me.
But this has caused me to think a great deal more about the overlaps
and distinctions between negotiated, consensual, scene-oriented BDSM
play (inside or outside of a relationship) and the thing that turns MY
crank, which is M/s, D/s, TPE, 24/7 Lifestyle, however you wish to name
it. Now, there have been a lot of arguments over the years as to which
is "better," what is "true submission" (implications being that if you
as a submissive are not submitting at the moment to someone - such as
the critic, for example - that you are not "really" a submissive, or on
the other end of unreasonable, if you feel you are submitting or desire
to be enslaved because that is what you *are,* then you aren't a
submissive, rather you are "revictimising' yourself.) I am citing
these as unreasonable arguments in the faint hope that they won't be
revisited.
But somewhere in the middle there is something resembling a useful
truth. And that is that there are real differences in what the actual
rush and reward is.
I think John Warren once accused me of being a "service-oriented
master" and I think it was intended to be a criticism. Whether or not
it was, it IS an accurate assessment of who I am and what I need to do.
The dot in the eye of the tadpole represents the inclusion of the polar
opposite, both within the Taoist symbol of dualism and paradox and the
BDSM triskel.
Now, since this is laid out in a top down sort of way, you might be
under the impression that this represents a thought-process. No, it's
more of an after-thought process. Usually I have an intuitive flash,
and then have to explain it to myself. Up to now was the explanation,
the flash occurred when I tried to create a BDSM triskel for my own
purposes, screwed it up and realized after looking at it a while that
it was a different thing entirely.
The reason I created it was that my wife and I have worn out our
copper, iron and steel handfasting bracelets after five or six years of
continuous wear and need replacements. They were wonderful, but they
weren't actually proper, according to the official guidelines. Other
considerations were price, a personal touch and again, price. That
meant, practically speaking, that I had to work with products available
at cafepress or zazzle, cause either way, I get a discount, and they
both have products that could work. I ended up going with zazzle
because the acrylic product they offer seems likely to survive longer
than cafepress' ceramic. I'm hoping it comes out as pretty as the
ceramic dye-transfer, though.
So I got to work and after much fussing and fooling about in photoshop
- created something entirely different. I kind of missed that at first
because I fell in love with the design itself, it speaks to me more
than the standard triskel. But it took me a while to figure out why.
The reason is that distinction between BDSM as it's commonly understood
and the more emotionally risky M/s. One thing with M/s and D/s is that
you really can't rely on the concept of consent, save perhaps as a
"meta-consent." Strictly but accurately speaking, my property does not
consent to this or not consent to that, I consent on their behalf and
thereby must accept responsibility for that decision by the terms and
bonds of our agreement. SSC is a good idea as a principle, and it is
needed in contexts where the urge would be to walk away from the mess
you created; that's why a consent fetish is a good thing.
But it's not so critical when one has to live with the messes one
creates and be responsible for cleaning them up. The dynamic centers
more around trust, and a conscious choice to always be worthy of it,
rather than the SSC "constant consent" commitment.
For my emotional and mental security - and also for that of my slaves -
there is no option to withdraw consent; the consent is to accept the
person in toto, fuckups and flashes of genius alike and than create a
dynamic stability based on what is, and what it becomes.At this point
it's both ironic and amusing ot mention that started seriously looking
for a second slave after first slave told me I needed to. I'd been
flirting with the wanting, but hadn't realized - until she gently
explained it to me - that it was an actual need. Our dynamic was
getting wobblier as the crisis that brought her to me was gradually
resolved into something stable for her. So, in order to deal with this,
she saw my need, and being a good slave, told me what it was and
pointedly suggested I do something about it. Or not to put too fine a
point on it, "chose to state it as a request," but 'twas an order
nonetheless.
This may boggle some of the lurkers who long for a true implacable
dominant master who will be totally and utterly faithful to them while
guarding them from the consequences of their own flirtatious natures.
Of course, these dear young things are generally in their twenties - an
age that seems barely post-pubescent to me nowadays. (Mara is in her
thirties, and still tai-tai and I often exchange looks that mean "god,
we are ooooold!," after she misses some cultural reference, such as the
Evil That Is Teddy Ruxpin.)
Anyhoo, M/s is a commitment similar in nature and degree to old forms
of marriage with no automatic escape clauses; that is the core of what
is a combination of personality factors, non-negotiable needs and
outright kink for all three of us. That is which is why my wife and I
chose to be married "di catanis." Her bracelet was locked on - but with
mine, the thing that held the chains of the bracelet together was the
actual loop of the key. Pretty nifty symbolism, if I do say myself, but
the materials were not up to it. Also turned out to be a moderate pain
in the ass for cleaning and maintenance. I have thought many times how
fortunate I was that none of our kinks mandated a chastity belt!
So I ventured into the realm of pure symbolism - because aside from the
replacements, there's also a need for a third! And any actual metal
jewelry I'd consider worthy of either - or myself, for that matter - is
more expensive than we can afford at the moment.
But then, I realized that I had created a symbol that did have meaning,
did say something unique, was as discreet and as distinctive as the
bdsm logo and would look understatedly smashing on jewelry. I see it as
being distinct but related, and you can see (and buy your own) at the
following link. All proceeds to go to the precious metal versions my
property are utterly entitled to.
For uses other than jewelry, you can assume to be governed under the
same terms as the BDSM logo itself, for the same reasons. It's intended
to mean something, and if you diverge to far, it will mean something
else entirely. I WILL be creating my own version of the BDSM logo,
`cause I need a transparent png of it and I want it to be visually
similar to my own, and available to those who wish to use it on their
websites as well. Frankly, some of "our" graphics are getting a little
behind the visual arts curve, so consider it my contribution. to the
scene as a whole.
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dgh52tnc_6fpqgxb
.
Troia
> I was morose yesterday, and when I'm morose I love to torture myself,
> though the idea was initially to find a an old flame.
When I first read this, I took it to mean "former love" ("old flame").
Ah, words!
> Specifically, one
> I'd written in iambic pentameter, to show our new RT that she really
> isn't being flamed. Not even Lynn, by Lynn's standards.
...
> ------------
> 28 From: Steven S. Davis - view profile
> Date: Tues, Sep 15 1998 12:00 am
> Email: s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis)
> Groups: soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm
>
> M. Shirley Chong (eit...@crone.avalon.net) wrote:
>
> : And then there is the waffling I see all the time! Subly Person A
> : states: "yes, I would do anything my Master orders, even if it means
> : killing myself or hurting someone else... Of course, -MY- Master would
> : never give me such an order." Well, that's hardly a ringing endorsement
> : from my point of view! Seems to me that it would be much more impressive
> : to say "well, yes, my Master just got out of jail because he ordered his
> : previous sub to stand stock still in the middle of the street while he
> : drove towards her--he miscalculated how good his brakes were. If my
> : Master tells me to stand in the middle of the street so he can test his
> : brake job, I'll be out there. I've already made out my will and given
> : two weeks' notice to my employer."
I enjoyed this comment, ancient as it is now. *g*
It's sometimes such a hard point to convey to newer subs -- not just
having boundaries but that the "Master" needs to use care and the sub
needs to use her brain -- especially problematic with those who believe
being a "slave" means letting the Master define them and having
absolutely no free thought or will.
I think I like the example because it addresses it in a way that
doesn''t bring up the more complex issue of abuse.
-- Troia
Ruth Lawrence
"Troia" wrote
> It's sometimes such a hard point to convey to newer subs -- not just
> having boundaries but that the "Master" needs to use care and the sub
> needs to use her brain
Master or Mistress, sub or switch
> -- especially problematic with those who believe being a "slave" means
> letting the Master define them and having absolutely no free thought or
> will.
..and new folks who want to go straight to M/s may be
quite unsuited to the reality
> I think I like the example because it addresses it in a way that doesn''t
> bring up the more complex issue of abuse.
complex and controversial
Ruth
SilverOz
Troia <troia....@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
>
> It's sometimes such a hard point to convey to newer subs -- not just
> having boundaries but that the "Master" needs to use care and the sub
> needs to use her brain -- especially problematic with those who believe
> being a "slave" means letting the Master define them and having
> absolutely no free thought or will.
>
Dunno... the ones I've met seem to ahve an underlying assumption that
the master will just get them to do and think like they are already.
in other words that the fantasy matches the reality because it's not
the fantasy they say it is....
A similar idea to the one already alluded to, that they are safe to
say "anything" because the master won't ask for something they find it
too hard to do.
Except they can say "give up self" because they are sure it won't be
any such thing, just the enjoyable illusion of same.
SilverOz
Ruth Lawrence
"SilverOz" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnens1ui...@gmail.com...
> In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:06:22 -0800
> Troia <troia....@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's sometimes such a hard point to convey to newer subs -- not just
>> having boundaries but that the "Master" needs to use care and the sub
>> needs to use her brain -- especially problematic with those who believe
>> being a "slave" means letting the Master define them and having
>> absolutely no free thought or will.
>>
>
> Dunno... the ones I've met seem to ahve an underlying assumption that
> the master will just get them to do and think like they are already.
:::smiles:::
Me, too. Or some idealised version thereof.
> in other words that the fantasy matches the reality because it's not
> the fantasy they say it is....
That's part of the thing, isn't it?
> A similar idea to the one already alluded to, that they are safe to
> say "anything" because the master won't ask for something they find it
> too hard to do.
Quite. They have chosen such a Master/Mistress....
> Except they can say "give up self" because they are sure it won't be
> any such thing, just the enjoyable illusion of same.
Gezackly.
Ruth, who neverthelesss does not want to do it at either end :::shrugs:::
SilverOz
Ruth Lawrence <curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> "SilverOz" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnens1ui...@gmail.com...
>>
>> the master will just get them to do and think like they are already.
>
>:::smiles:::
>
> Me, too. Or some idealised version thereof.
I found that it worked for me, but I think I was quite clear that was
what was going on.
In that I knew I wouldn't be with somene I didn't trust to do his best
to not cause harm, and to hang about and do his best to fix what he
got wrong.
I also think that while we were doing a lot of playing with control
there was no TPE trappings involved. And the playing showed us both
the limitations we were working under.
I think if the limitations are acknowledged then no problem. It's the
hiding of them with the rhetoric that is bad.
Zebee
SilverOz
Ruth Lawrence
> In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:46:46 +1100
> Ruth Lawrence <curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> "SilverOz" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnens1ui...@gmail.com...
>>>
>>> Dunno... the ones I've met seem to ahve an underlying assumption that
>>> the master will just get them to do and think like they are already.
>>
>>:::smiles:::
>>
>> Me, too. Or some idealised version thereof.
>
> I found that it worked for me, but I think I was quite clear that was
> what was going on.
Yes, this does not surprise me.
>
> In that I knew I wouldn't be with somene I didn't trust to do his best
> to not cause harm, and to hang about and do his best to fix what he
> got wrong.
Even I could handle that...but it doesn't really speak to me as kink.
> I also think that while we were doing a lot of playing with control
> there was no TPE trappings involved. And the playing showed us both
> the limitations we were working under.
:::nods:::
> I think if the limitations are acknowledged then no problem. It's the
> hiding of them with the rhetoric that is bad.
:::nods:::
Absolutely.
It feels like a false piety to me, too.
I was totally ticked off when someone presented this fantasy as both real
and the only BDSM at a newbies night, but of course I'm still digging myself
out of a quagmire of balderdash, lumpy with head-trip clots.
It isn't true, not at all, that having needs and not being an unthinking,
unquestioning fleshly robot is topping from the bottom (a stupid-domly
control ploy, of course).
Ruth (who wishes to avoid ploys at either end or the middle)
Lynn
Bob King wrote:
> I was morose yesterday, and when I'm morose I love to torture myself,
> though the idea was initially to find a an old flame. Specifically, one
> I'd written in iambic pentameter, to show our new RT that she really
> isn't being flamed. Not even Lynn, by Lynn's standards.
Oh, Bob, Bob, Bob. I just took a final exam tonight and am extremely
wrung out and will not be able to process your very detailed,
thoughtful, and personal essay tonight. I promise, tomorrow I will
give it the attention it deserves. Wait, I have to do traffic school
tomorrow. Wednesday, then. Ah, fuckit, I'll get up early tomorrow to
read it. Seems like a good cause.
Lynn
SilverOz
>>
>> In that I knew I wouldn't be with somene I didn't trust to do his best
>> to not cause harm, and to hang about and do his best to fix what he
>> got wrong.
>
> Even I could handle that...but it doesn't really speak to me as kink.
>
That wasn't the kink really :)
His was control. The getting of someone to do things for him almost
as a reflex rather than as a considered action. A pure "training"
idea in a way.
He did, after all, write a book about it :)
(Which is to be published by Jack Rimilla soon)
It isn't my main kink either, hence we parted as we had gone as far
as we could together.
THe kink wasn't fear or resistance, although his had overcoming
resistance a bit I think. Not overbearing or breaking, but teaching
and controlling and authority. Which don't really need to be about
harming or not fixing.
When I was mastering my horse, no point in facing her with a job she
couldn't do, or damaging her. I had to train her to do what I wanted
and be realistic about her abilities. Overworking her, or losing her
trust by overfacing her would be silly. And not a mark of my mastery
but the reverse. People who ruin horses are despised. If I did make
a mistake and injure her or mess up her training, then it was my job
to pay the vet bills or go back to the beginning and get it right.
I can't see where breaking or harming are particularly kinky myself.
They seem to me to be a failure not a desired endpoint :)
Fear can be a kink, although not one I have. I am not sure it can be
more than a "not really scared just the illusion of it" endpoint in
any long term relationship.
I see the horse or dog analogy working much better for the reality of
D&S then most of the leather and whip and bad B movie ones that
abound.
SilverOz
Ruth Lawrence
> In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:29:19 +1100
> Ruth Lawrence <curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> "SilverOz" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnense7k...@gmail.com...
>>>
>>> In that I knew I wouldn't be with somene I didn't trust to do his best
>>> to not cause harm, and to hang about and do his best to fix what he
>>> got wrong.
>>
>> Even I could handle that...but it doesn't really speak to me as kink.
>>
>
> That wasn't the kink really :)
Right!
> His was control. The getting of someone to do things for him almost
> as a reflex rather than as a considered action. A pure "training"
> idea in a way.
:::nods:::
As a dom, mine is erotic power :::looks a wee bit embarrassed:::
I do like to mentor, too, not as kink, but it can feed a sub's kink.
> He did, after all, write a book about it :)
aha!
> (Which is to be published by Jack Rimilla soon)
Good! I own lotsa BDSM books :-)
> It isn't my main kink either, hence we parted as we had gone as far
> as we could together.
>
> THe kink wasn't fear or resistance, although his had overcoming
> resistance a bit I think. Not overbearing or breaking, but teaching
> and controlling and authority. Which don't really need to be about
> harming or not fixing
Yup..I think I get this enough to have a bit of a feel for it (unlike some
other perfectly fine kinks).
> When I was mastering my horse, no point in facing her with a job she
> couldn't do, or damaging her. I had to train her to do what I wanted
> and be realistic about her abilities. Overworking her, or losing her
> trust by overfacing her would be silly.
Indeed, and unkind.
> And not a mark of my mastery
> but the reverse. People who ruin horses are despised.
Rightly so, IMNSHO.
> If I did make
> a mistake and injure her or mess up her training, then it was my job
> to pay the vet bills or go back to the beginning and get it right.
Exactly.
> I can't see where breaking or harming are particularly kinky myself.
> They seem to me to be a failure not a desired endpoint :)
Maybe it's unsocialised sadism on occasion, ya know?
> Fear can be a kink, although not one I have. I am not sure it can be
> more than a "not really scared just the illusion of it" endpoint in
> any long term relationship.
I can like a frisson of fear, fear that isn't realistic (as when I think my
spinal fluid will run out my heels due to standing near a visual precipice,
as in a plate glass window). I play with it a bit, I admit, on my own.
> I see the horse or dog analogy working much better for the reality of
> D&S then most of the leather and whip and bad B movie ones that
> abound.
Ugh!
Oh, pr0n is pr0n. Stick books are stick books, even when written by Laura
Antoniou.
part of me wants to say 'but we are all so much more than that, in the end'.
Ruth
Bob King
Troia wrote:
> Bob King wrote:
> > I was morose yesterday, and when I'm morose I love to torture myself,
> > though the idea was initially to find a an old flame.
>
> When I first read this, I took it to mean "former love" ("old flame").
>
> Ah, words!
I was definitely playing with them, since the contex was a rather ugly
situation - ancient history now - that did involve what is now an "old
flame."
I never did find my text-flame. (sigh) Probably just as well.
> > Specifically, one
> > I'd written in iambic pentameter, to show our new RT that she really
> > isn't being flamed. Not even Lynn, by Lynn's standards.
>
> It's sometimes such a hard point to convey to newer subs -- not just
> having boundaries but that the "Master" needs to use care and the sub
> needs to use her brain -- especially problematic with those who believe
> being a "slave" means letting the Master define them and having
> absolutely no free thought or will.
I convey it to them in these terms: "and what in all of that is of
benifit to me?" It's not feeding my kinks, and even if it were, I can't
see it as something I could put up with indefinitely. As for defining
another - well, I'm more comfortable with that, as I'm pretty good at
eliciting admissions of what people already are and won't admit to
themselves.
> I think I like the example because it addresses it in a way that
> doesn''t bring up the more complex issue of abuse.
Well, ignorance and self-delusion are generally the roots of abuse;
doing unto others or putting up with that which you think you ought to
do, rather than what is actually appropriate to your need-set. Abuse
happens - mostly, I think - when needs are denied, or made conditional
on doing something that's damaging to your person or sanity.
Then, of course, we come to the rarer cases, where the abuse is a
result of some form of an unfashiable but very real condition of choice
- evil.
However, most of those folks seem to be preoccupied with politics at
the moment. :>
Bob King
SilverOz wrote:
> A similar idea to the one already alluded to, that they are safe to
> say "anything" because the master won't ask for something they find it
> too hard to do.
>
> Except they can say "give up self" because they are sure it won't be
> any such thing, just the enjoyable illusion of same.
>
> SilverOz
Oh, and He will Know That Without Having to be Told, of course.
I once saw that illusion dissapear in a single stroke of a flogger
constructed from plastic tubing. The reviews were negative. :P I later
got a soft deerhide flogger that is mostly "sound and fury," signifying
a good massage. (Made by Ice of Portland, a beautiful ball-head
flogger.)
I've come to prefer canes though.
Bob King
Why thank you;
Yes, it was something of a core dump, wasn't it?
Kristal
> His was control. The getting of someone to do things for him almost
> as a reflex rather than as a considered action. A pure "training"
> idea in a way.
>
> He did, after all, write a book about it :)
I would describe my interest in control as a desire for frictionless
obedience. That is obedience in which all resistence is eliminated. I
wonder if his interest is similar and whether BDSM styles can be divided
into those which overcoming resistence is interesting in itself and
those in which is it is a tool to obtain frictionless obedience. Of
course overcoming resistence in some cases could provide other sources
of pleasure such as inflicting pain making the situation more complex.
In my case I could be involved in topping merely to inflict pain and
that is a separate kink I have from the desire to control. In my opinion
there is wide range of activities in BDSM and it takes a while for
people to sort out what they want.
Kristal
SilverOz
Kristal <Kri...@yifan.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnensluq...@gmail.com>, zeb...@gmail.com says...
>> His was control. The getting of someone to do things for him almost
>> as a reflex rather than as a considered action. A pure "training"
>> idea in a way.
>>
>> He did, after all, write a book about it :)
>
> I would describe my interest in control as a desire for frictionless
> obedience. That is obedience in which all resistence is eliminated. I
> wonder if his interest is similar and whether BDSM styles can be divided
> into those which overcoming resistence is interesting in itself and
> those in which is it is a tool to obtain frictionless obedience. Of
I suspect the answer to both is "yes".
The book (no info yet on when it's coming out but I believe the markup
is at the printer) has a lot of discussion on power, authority and
control, and ideas on how to work these into BDSM. It's not a recipe
book, it's a book full of ideas and questions for people to think
about and work with.
I think overcoming resistance as a kink is very common, perhaps more
so than the frictionless kind. If only because when people think of
the frictionless kind it's a "service sub" idea, where the work seems
to be all the sub's. For someone with the service kink[1], there is no
resistance but I think that as major kink is pretty rare. For someone
to get frictionless obedience that takes work and I don't know that it
gives as much instant power rush as the overcoming kind, at least for
most people.
Which may just mean that frictionless resistance desire is as rare in
doms as the service kink is in subs.
SilverOz
[1] by this I don't mean so much "I love the dom and want to please
them" as I mean "I'll do the dishes off my own bat cos that gets me
hot". They do exist, but they are rare!
Christian subbie
>
>
> It's sometimes such a hard point to convey to newer subs -- not just
> having boundaries but that the "Master" needs to use care and the sub
> needs to use her brain -- especially problematic with those who
> believe being a "slave" means letting the Master define them and
> having absolutely no free thought or will.
>
slave believes, I think she knows the nature of her relationship. And
allowing one's master to define them is just that, allowing, consenting.
It is making a choice with one's will to allow one's master to define
them, and define their thoughts and will if need be. That is what
slavery is. And in consensual slavery, the power is in the choice,
Troia, I am not sure if a sub can describe the psychology of a slave.
You know my name is a tongue in cheek remark. The accurate term coming
from me would be Christian slave.
I find it offensive that you attempt to speak for the bdsm community.
Each couple, or threesome or foursome or more must define their own
relationship or relationships.
Not all bdsm is physical. I thought we knew this. Much of it is
psychological. Now, the psychological can lead to the physical, however,
for some of us it starts in the psyche. That does _not_ invalidate it
_at all_.