Dating? (related to "I'm not playing")
Adaria
First, thanks so much to everyone who
gave me suggestions for Fem/fem
resources! I'm in the process of gathering
those and responding to folks who
responded to me in private e-mail.
My reason for posting, however, is to ask
a frighteningly newbie question: Do
BDSMers date?
My question springs from the fact that, for
me (and please remember that all
opinions stated below are *for me* and
don't get on my case about imposing my
feelings on other people), I'm not playing
either. This is serious. One of the things
I find attractive about a D/s relationship is
that it's a real commitment. If I'm gonna let
someone tie me up and hurt me (and it is
rather the point for this to eventually
happen ^_^), I had *better* know that
person awfully well. The trust has to be
there *first*--none of the rest can happen
without it.
So this notion of meeting someone and
leaping straight into negotiation is
downright frightening and completely
mind-boggling. All respect to all you
Dom/mes out there, but in my universe it
does not follow that 'cause you're a
Domme and I agree to meet you, that
therefore sex will definitely happen
between us. If I'm going to submit to you,
it's something serious and real, and I'm
not going to just hand it to you anymore
than I'm going to go around groveling to
everyone who decides to call themselves
a Dom/me, just 'cause I'm a sub. (If I do
that, then what of value will I have to give *
my* Domme when I finally find her?)
Am I alone on this? Does no one in this
community date for a while before things
get physical? Maybe I'm drawing an over-
hasty conclusion from what I've managed
to glean from the NG, but it is the
impression I've got.
Boy, am I in trouble if that *is* the way
things are! I'm definitely not interested in
being D/s only in cyberspace, but better
that than "playing" at this (sorry, but that
word is completely inappropriate for what
I'm looking for).
(And now I leap off my soapbox and dive
for the nearest asbestos cover. . . .)
--Adaria
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Janet Miles
> My reason for posting, however, is to ask
> a frighteningly newbie question: Do
> BDSMers date?
Um, yeah, probably. I would think, anyway.
Me, I'm for SM rather than DS, but there's no way I'd start out by meeting
someone and leaping right into negotiation.
To date, I've met playpartners exclusively through Usenet, both here and
elsewhere. We've corresponded, become friends, and only then begun to
negotiate playing. I suspect that if I were looking for a DS-based
relationship, I'd probably approach it the same way: meet someone
interesting (preferably in a setting with a higher probability of finding a
compatible partner, but not looking only for that), develop a friendship,
and only then look toward developing a power/sex/play/whatever relationship.
I'm sure that others' mileage varies.
JanetM
who thinks that was really an excellent question, and is looking forward to
this thread!
--
Posted by Janet Miles (jmi...@usit.net) <http://www.public.usit.net/jmiles>
Loyal Webcrafter: PenUltimate Productions <http://www.worthlink.net/~ysabet>
and SSBB DC <http://magenta.com/lmnop/users/xlator/ssbbcorps.html>
Member: SSBB Diplomatic Corps -- East Tennessee
A. C. Scott
comfortable with our roles and needs. Master Scottie
Adaria <ada...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7v7ovf$hou$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hello, all!
>
> First, thanks so much to everyone who
> gave me suggestions for Fem/fem
> resources! I'm in the process of gathering
> those and responding to folks who
> responded to me in private e-mail.
>
> a frighteningly newbie question: Do
> BDSMers date?
>
SilverOz
Adaria <ada...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>Am I alone on this? Does no one in this
>community date for a while before things
>get physical? Maybe I'm drawing an over-
>hasty conclusion from what I've managed
>to glean from the NG, but it is the
>impression I've got.
Well.. as a D&S player, I sure as hell did.
Even when meeting respondents to a personal ad that said "dom wanted",
I met them for dinner, we talked about non-BDSM things, we felt
each other's ideas and feelings out...
Sometimes it didn't go beyond one meeting. Other times it was that one
"get to know you" one, then another where we talked about playing a bit
as well as non-BDSM things, then when we did it was very much "lets dip
our toes in a tiny bit and see".
But the ones like that have been less successful than the ones
with lots and lots of talking and getting to know in person and
online well before any play.
Eccles and I had known each other on and offline for some years
before we decided that two such bondage bunnies really ought to
get something happening :)
Peter and I had met via BDSM mailing list, but were not thinking
about a relationship till we'd been out together as friends with
mutual non-BDSM interests several times.
Some people like casual play, some don't.
I have found that while it's not my thing, I can do "lets try a bit
of physical stuff" as a prelude, that is with the mindset of "if this
works, it's for the long term."
I do know that longterm or not, it takes *time* to give fully. Even
with Peter, it took *months* of time together (BDSM and non-BDSM)
before I could give a lot of myself. That time involved mistakes
on both parts, misunderstandings, revelations, and just plain time.
Even now, 2 years down the track, we are only just starting to get
something deep happening, and it's easy enough to break it and start
again. So while I know that I need to give, I also know that it won't
happen instantly.
Remember - everyone is different. If you have requirements and needs, you
have them. A bunch of people having different ones doesn't change that.
SilverOz
~TiggerBrat3100~
My Master and i met 11 months ago, after i posted an ad on a "spanking
page". I was completely oblivious to the BDSM community and didn't have
this in mind! I simply wanted to have a little physical play (i wasn't
even thinking sex!) on the side. I was "dating" (there's that term!)a
vanilla man at the time anyway.
Anyway, to make a long story short, Master spanked me the night we met - no
sex - no "date" - nothing. He slept in my bed that night - but that was
all. We didn't even touch each other.
A couple of weeks later, we started having sex.
A couple of weeks after that, we started going places together, including
taking my daughter to Disneyland.
Our relationship today is fully D/s with a little "dating", a lot of
"family" type activities, and LOTS of sex.
Once, when Master and i were at a comedy club, the comedian asked us if we
were dating...i didn't know how to answer, but Master simply answered
"yes". But then, at the dungeon that we went to this last weekend, no one
cared if we were dating, but only if he had "collared" me.
It can get pretty confusing, but i suppose "dating" is a vanilla term of
sorts. I have never said that we were "dating" but that we were simply
"together".
If Master and i were vanilla, we really did things backwards - spanking
THEN sex THEN dating. But we aren't, so no need to worry about that <eg>.
As far as "groveling" and giving respect to a Dom/me just because i am a
sub, i do NOT do that. I treat them with the same respect as i have for
any other person, but no more. My Master earned the respect that i have
for him. For example, at this dungeon we went to, some of the Doms asked
Master questions *about" me - and my Master looked at me - wanting me to
answer. I am still a person. I do not submit to anyone except my Master,
unless *he* instructs me to do so and is present. There were Doms (this
was a M/f only event) at this party who obviously expected to be treated
differently than a "regular" person because of their "position". I don't
believe in this. Nor does my Master. My Master does not expect other subs
to act submissive toward him, and he *sure* doesn't expect me to act
submissive toward other Doms.
Adaria <ada...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7v7ovf$hou$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> between us. If I'm going to submit to you,
> it's something serious and real, and I'm
> not going to just hand it to you anymore
> than I'm going to go around groveling to
> everyone who decides to call themselves
> a Dom/me, just 'cause I'm a sub. (If I do
> that, then what of value will I have to give *
> my* Domme when I finally find her?)
>
My thoughts EXACTLY. My submission is saved for my Master.
Good post! This should spark some good discussion. :)
--
TiggerBrat
- It is better to be hated for what one is,
than to be loved for what one isn't.....
http://home.talkcity.com/lolway/caligirl_23
24 year old female submissive. Happily collared.
Binder
[snip]
> My reason for posting, however, is to ask
> a frighteningly newbie question: Do
> BDSMers date?
Sure! At least I do, and since I've been dating the same wonderful
woman for 8 months, I guess there are at least two of us. :)
>
> So this notion of meeting someone and
> leaping straight into negotiation is
> downright frightening and completely
> mind-boggling.
Well... I'm fond of entering into negotiations on the first *meeting*.
But then I won't date someone that I don't think I have some serious
positive comptabilities with. So the negotiations at this point are an
attempt to establish *if* there's a basis for a relationship in which
negotiations for play will take place later.
I know it's a semantically minute point... but I tend in that
direction. I like to have definitions for words like "no" and "yes"
and "cane" and "play" established before I actually talk about how
much I want to hear any of those combined with a good begging.
> Boy, am I in trouble if that *is* the way
> things are! I'm definitely not interested in
> being D/s only in cyberspace, but better
> that than "playing" at this (sorry, but that
> word is completely inappropriate for what
> I'm looking for).
I suspect that you'll be just fine in here....
> (And now I leap off my soapbox and dive
> for the nearest asbestos cover. . . .)
but keep the asbestos handy, just in case. :)
Binder
--
" 'Tis better to Wield a Good Ruler than to Bend before a Bad one."
SSB-B Diplomatic Corps: Marin County, CA -- to reply, remove the idjit
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
Katharine Hawks
wrote:
>My reason for posting, however, is to ask
>a frighteningly newbie question: Do
>BDSMers date?
I don't really, nor have I ever, experienced myself as someone
who 'dates'. Frankly, I'm not exactly sure what a date is. I've
probably been on dates, and not known it <g>
OTOH, I do have play/sex relationships that exist in the context
of both casual and deeply commited friendships. My most
committed DS relationship is probably with my boy, and while we
spend most of our time existing within the framework of a power
exchange, I still consider our friendship to be the most
important aspect of our relationship.
>So this notion of meeting someone and
>leaping straight into negotiation is
>downright frightening and completely
>mind-boggling.
While I know there are people who play like this, frankly, it's
rare IMX. While it may not be uncommon for me to play with
someone that I don't have a committed relationship (of some
kind), usually there is at least a history of socializing,
conversation and interaction.
For me, the intensity of play is usually determined by the
strength of my connection with a person and the intimacy and
trust we've establised (in any number of frameworks).
If a bottom were to approach me with a simple scene ("hey, I'd
like to see what a singletail feels like"), that's not a big
deal, and more likely than not, I'll be happy to oblige.
However, my play will be conservative and there will be little
semblance of a power exchange.
>All respect to all you
>Dom/mes out there, but in my universe it
>does not follow that 'cause you're a
>Domme and I agree to meet you, that
>therefore sex will definitely happen
>between us. If I'm going to submit to you,
>it's something serious and real, and I'm
>not going to just hand it to you anymore
>than I'm going to go around groveling to
>everyone who decides to call themselves
>a Dom/me, just 'cause I'm a sub. (If I do
>that, then what of value will I have to give *
>my* Domme when I finally find her?)
That's how most submissives and dominants I know feel.
--Katharine
****************************************
General Purpose Pervert
Caution: Contents Under Pressure
*****************************************
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Chicago, Illinois
T. Eckhart
>My reason for posting, however, is to ask
>a frighteningly newbie question: Do
>BDSMers date?
Depends on the type of relationship.
Faith and I were friends for about a year before we started our
scene relationship. While it is physical on some levels it is not a
sexual relationship or a romantic relationship so I do not consider he and
I to be dating, he is one of my closest and dearest friends now and that
bound should last over the years.
Anna came to me before she wanted to learn from my experience,
which here where I live now is rather long and intense. We have become
friends but the relationship started out as a mentoring one. While
physical in several ways we also are not sexually or romanticly involved
so I do not consider us dating.
Silver was going to be another mentoring relationship but we
clicked on so many other levels that it has become sexual and romantic. I
consider us to be dating, though not in a vanilla sense of that word.
We're talking about signing a contract this weekend and I'm very happy
about that -- each person is different so my standard contract will be
reworked for us. (just cause I have standards doesn't mean I'm not
flexible as well)
--
--
Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips, & Chains,
TammyJo Eckhart (teck...@kiva.net)
http://www.kiva.net/~teckhart/
Check out my latest book: _Justice And Other Short Erotic Tales_
Seth J. Fogarty
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:57:20 GMT, Adaria <ada...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >My reason for posting, however, is to ask
> >a frighteningly newbie question: Do
> >BDSMers date?
>
> Depends on the type of relationship.
<snip longish and excellent description>
So you consider dating to be any type of active relationship? i.e. a
sexual relationship would be sexual dating? I've always been lead to
believe (although I may be wrong. in fact, it's quite probable) that
dating was what happened BEFORE the relationship.
I will also note that this belief had lead me to think that nope, I don't
date.
these things just happen to me.
Seth Fogarty
bipsum
T. Eckhart
>On 28 Oct 1999, T. Eckhart wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:57:20 GMT, Adaria <ada...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >My reason for posting, however, is to ask
>> >a frighteningly newbie question: Do
>> >BDSMers date?
>>
>> Depends on the type of relationship.
><snip longish and excellent description>
>
>So you consider dating to be any type of active relationship? i.e. a
>sexual relationship would be sexual dating? I've always been lead to
>believe (although I may be wrong. in fact, it's quite probable) that
>dating was what happened BEFORE the relationship.
I see dating as the relationship that comes before a serious
commentment (long term Ds contract or marriage or living together) or the
end of the relationship all together. For me dating needs to be romantic
and perhaps sexual -- so I have active relationships with Faith and Anna
but we are not dating because it isn't romantic or sexual.
Tom and I still go out on "dates" (special events just for the two
of us) and still celebrate our dating anniversary to this day (after 7
years of marriage) as a way to be romantic I guess.
I see dating as part of courtship ritual then which will lead to
something more permenant -- either a serious relationship or no
relationship.
Janet Hardy
First, I meet someone in a social setting with a BDSM flavor (a munch, a
workshop, etc.). I enjoy that person's company and make a point of
interacting with them again when I see them the next time. Eventually, one
of us proposes play to the other, we try a scene, it works. We try another
one. We enjoy each other enough as friends and play partners that we make
some sort of commitment to get together regularly.
Or I meet someone at a play party, chat for a while, and discover that we're
on the same wavelength play-wise. We do a scene at the party and it sings.
We probably play at another party or two, then decide to get together for
some private play, then start seeing one another regularly.
Or I run or answer a personal ad. After a round or two of correspondence,
the person and I meet for a meal or two, then get together for private play,
then start seeing one another regularly.
#1 is probably the most common, but I've met people the other ways, too.
Verdant
Adaria
> So you consider dating to be any type of active relationship? i.e. a
> sexual relationship would be sexual dating?
I guess it was a little flippant to just throw
the word "dating" in there without defining
how I was using it. ^_^;;;;
What I meant was getting to know people
socially, in a *non*-sexual context,
without the assumption that sex is an
inevitable event in the relationship. It just
sounded like people were starting to
negotiate the instant they met in real life.
While that's fine for people who want to do
that, that's just not me. As I am very new
to this subculture, I figured I should check
and make sure that my expectations are
not completely out of sync with what I
would find out there. Living abroad for a
year during college taught me how
dangerous cultural assumptions can be.
Sorry I didn't make that clear from the
start!
Adaria
slrn81gnjv....@sherrill.kiva.net>
,
teck...@sherrill.kiva.net (T. Eckhart)
wrote:
> I see dating as part of courtship ritual then which will lead to
> something more permenant -- either a serious relationship or no
> relationship.
I should've read *all* the responses
before responding! This states what I
meant much better than I did. When I said
"non-sexual" what I meant was that it (a)
wasn't the first thing on your list of things
to do with this person and (b) wasn't
assumed to be required by the fact you
were meeting at all. I didn't mean that it
was assumed *not* to be part of the deal.
(Gee, have I managed to make this any
clearer or have I muddied the waters past
comprehension?)
victorian squid
> mind-boggling. All respect to all you
> Dom/mes out there, but in my universe it
> does not follow that 'cause you're a
> Domme and I agree to meet you, that
> therefore sex will definitely happen
> between us.
OK, here's where I'm confuseded. You don't seem to make a differentiation
between playing and sex. Not that that's a bad thing or a great thing, but
it's a thing that might be causing some communication problems and may be
coloring how you're reading the group. Since I'd say the vast majority of
people who are referring to play aren't referring to sex. It can be sex.
It doesn't have to be sex. I know this can be kind of a difficult mental
leap for some, 'cause I was one of those some once :). All I can say is
when you see it happen, it'll be a lot more obvious than it is trying to
imagine it.
Another thing to bear in mind is, too, that not every time, but a lot of
times when people are talking about "casual play", they're usually doing
that with people they know a bit. I make the "casual" distinction because
I see a wide distinction between "play" (general noun) and "casual play",
"serious play", "edgeplay", ad infinitum. There are lots of kinds of
"play". "Play" shouldn't automatically be taken to mean "unserious". It's
a word that to me just designates a different, more intense kind of
action, a different space. Context is what I go by to judge what sort of
thing someone is talking about. What Laura appeared to be taking about was
casual, uncommitted play, and maybe punning on the way the word is
commonly used outside the world of bdsm.
> Am I alone on this? Does no one in this
> community date for a while before things
> get physical?
I dated my sweetie, actually. Honestly, the "dates" we had were among the
only ones I've ever had, because generally speaking I am not a person who
has dates, I'm a person who falls into things. I did play with him the
first evening I met him (he co-topped me with a close mutual friend, whom
I knew and trusted). It was a profound experience. Sexual energy was
present to be sure but.....I wouldn't say it was sex. That came along a
little bit later :).
I can't say as we ever sat down to negotiation, either. Talked a lot tho.
Some of that conversation was about limits and whathave, some of it was
just getting to know each other. Again, my experience was that that
process came about a lot more naturally than it would seem to on paper.
Love on ya,
v. squid
Johnslve
>OK, here's where I'm confuseded. You don't seem to make a differentiation
>between playing and sex.
<snip>
>Since I'd say the vast majority of
>people who are referring to play aren't referring to sex.
Now, *I'm* confused.
I personally have never "played" BDSM with anyone aside from my lover (which is
always sexual and in private). I have always thought that BDSM *is*all about
sexual expression, which qualifies it as sexual behavior and therefore, some
form of sex.
Discussion here and other reading has solidifed that opinion, though I have
learned that sex in this context does not have to culminate in orgasm or even
fluid exchange.
Thoughts?
P.
Live, love and laugh
CynPlahuta
it's a thing that might be causing some communication problems and may be
coloring how you're reading the group. Since I'd say the vast majority of
people who are referring to play aren't referring to sex. It can be sex.
It doesn't have to be sex. I know this can be kind of a difficult mental
leap for some, 'cause I was one of those some once :). All I can say is
when you see it happen, it'll be a lot more obvious than it is trying to
imagine it.
>>
I just wanted to hop onto this one paragraph, go off on a tangent, and add yes,
and even if it's a lot more obvious, some people never *will* get it no matter
how long they've been around.
Even tho I may have no clothes on during a scene ~g~, my masochism has nothing
to do with sex. Some tops I've played with just have never been able to get
the idea of how disconcerting it can be being worked nicely with a singletail
(in that dept. they're quite competent), being off in left-field mentally with
the endorphins, and then have said top start coming at me constantly with "Are
you coming yet? Are you coming yet?" Aarrrgggghhhhh. That can be soooo
frustrating. Some very "experienced" players never will get it. I often get
the idea that they feel they've failed if I don't orgasm and orgasm's just not
the point with me.
Cynthia
Ruffiane
>socially, in a *non*-sexual context,
>without the assumption that sex is an
>inevitable event in the relationship. It just
>sounded like people were starting to
>negotiate the instant they met in real life.
>Sorry I didn't make that clear from the
>start!
>
>Adaria
Your meaning was perfectly clear from the first post. Unfortunately, what you
describe is an alien concept to far too many in the lifestyle. Many people
drift from experience to experience looking for something that just can't be
found in random encounters.
You will have the most success and experience the LEAST amount of grief if you
conduct your life within a d/s context exactly as you do in any other context.
Someone who won't respect that isn't worth your time.
Unfortunately what happens is you can meet someone who seems almost perfect,
and in any other context you'd be ecstatic at finding each other, only to have
the relationship derailed because you find he's into necrophilia or something,
and you prefer live partners and it's hasta la vista little soulmate.
<sigh> Good luck. And be true to youself.
Best,
Ruffiane
victorian squid
> Now, *I'm* confused.
>
> I personally have never "played" BDSM with anyone aside from my lover
(which >is always sexual and in private). I have always thought that BDSM
*is*all >about sexual expression, which qualifies it as sexual behavior
and therefore,.
Newbie dom friend I was talking to about playing. I told him that in
addition to negotiating and all that first, Ownerperson would want to
watch him play a few times, get a feel for his style, see how safe he was,
all that stuff. My poor friend, he was trying so hard to be open-minded:
"You mean he wants to WATCH????? Er, well, I'm not against that but......I
dunno about that, it makes me nervous........". Stutter stutter flutter
flutter. It was then that I realized we didn't mean the same thing by play
:).
Thinking it was possible that Adaria might be laboring under a similar
misconception, I thought that was something I should throw in, just in
case.
There -are- people for whom wiitwd is not about sexual expression. And
that's all I'm contributing to THAT. This is a subject that often ends up
being very contentious. Hell, just on a casual read I can see two things
that have been previously hotly contested here in that one sentence alone.
I'm officially bowing out. I like bloodsports, but that kind of bloodsport
is too rough for me :).
Johnslve
>I should've read *all* the responses
>before responding!
The beauty of the discussion here is that it never quite ends, always giving us
something more to think about.
>(Gee, have I managed to make this any
>clearer or have I muddied the waters past
>comprehension?)
It's never easy to make something clear to others when it is not clear to you.
Muddying waters? I don't think so. I see you assimilating the ideas others
have shared and thinking further, which is the point, after all.
Keep posting! :-)
Johnslve
>There -are- people for whom wiitwd is not about sexual expression. And
>that's all I'm contributing to THAT. This is a subject that often ends up
>being very contentious. Hell, just on a casual read I can see two things
>that have been previously hotly contested here in that one sentence alone.
>I'm officially bowing out.
Uh oh. Despite the fact that I think I just did another one of those "newbie"
things, I appreciate the time you took to respond.
If this will begin a thread of something that has already been discussed to
death here and the SSB-YKIOK proponents are sighing, please accept my apology
in advance.
And, BTW, I always welcome personal emails :-)
victorian squid
I don't really like answering my own posts, but I realized that some
things may not have been as clear as I'd have liked.
I wrote:
> Thinking it was possible that Adaria might be laboring under a similar
> misconception, I thought that was something I should throw in, just in
> case.
Misconception I was referring to in that instance: play always leads to
sexual consummation. Just wanted to be crystal on that.
> There -are- people for whom wiitwd is not about sexual expression.
That's a separate point.
For me, it -always- is. I would even venture to say that for a lot of
people it always is. But there are definitely exceptions.
victorian squid
Johnslve wrote:
> Uh oh. Despite the fact that I think I just did another one of those "newbie"
> things, I appreciate the time you took to respond.
Well, gee, I mean, you're not psychic! How on earth would you have known
that given your own experiences? Just wanted to warn you that it -might-
blow up. It might not. I apologize for unnecessarily panicking you or
being the cause of worry, generally. I really doubt anyone's gonna accuse
you of the much dreaded *gasp* YKINOK. Now if someone chimes in and says
it's not sexual for -them-, and you insist that they're deluded, that
could be a problem :). But I really doubt that anyone would take your post
that way. You stated what it is for you, and asked a question. I can't see
how that would make people mad.
> If this will begin a thread of something that has already been discussed to
> death here and the SSB-YKIOK proponents are sighing, please accept my apology
> in advance.
It might. I see no reason on earth why people shouldn't discuss it again,
it's a totally valid (and juicy) topic and the responses are often new,
even if the argument isn't. I just personally don't want to be in said
argument :).
CynPlahuta
you
describe is an alien concept to far too many in the lifestyle. Many people
drift from experience to experience looking for something that just can't be
found in random encounters.
>>
Yes. Very large yes, in fact. Except I have a different twist at the end.
I used to go with the flow so to speak and figure that since I only play
locally there was really no harm in going ahead and agreeing to play rather
quickly if the other person wanted to. If things didn't work out, they didn't
work out. If we weren't a good match, we'd find out soon enough and that would
be that.
Altho this style does often seem to be the rule more than the exception amongst
people I know, I've hit the brakes on doing it. The emotional number it did on
me was just too much. Particular if we matched in s&m likes/dislikes but when
we got down to "dating", to doing things outside the realm of s&m, just simple
things like going to movies, going to dinner, animals, hobbies, just *talking*
even, incompatibility reared it's ugly little head.
I've recently taken a stand with myself and determined that I want
compatibility to exist for the entire package of a relationship. (Not
unreasonable, eh? ~g~) And for me at least, that means beginning with the
vanilla things (like dating) first and then later moving into s/m or d/s,
depending on the other person's kinks. I found that if I was compatible with
the person on a bdsm level, I was working too hard to *make* things work on
other levels, that even tho the other person was happy, I was sacrificing far
too much of myself. It wasn't fair to me and it wasn't fair to the other
person involved who assumed the relationship was moving smoothly along into
something serious when I really wasn't happy.
That's not to say I see anything wrong with casual play. It's just not for me.
For me, it *doesn't* successfully move into either a more serious relationship
or no relationship. I try too hard not to let the "no relationship" happen
unless the other party realizes that that's what should be happening and is in
agreement. I'm rather wussy about hurting people's feelings in a relationship
and while I'm searching for a diplomatic and compassionate way to end things,
things are also building up inside me.
Well, I've taken a ton of words to say virtually nothing, so I'll give any
readers a break ~g~ end the running on.
Cynthia
Seth J. Fogarty
> I just wanted to hop onto this one paragraph, go off on a tangent, and add yes,
> and even if it's a lot more obvious, some people never *will* get it no matter
> how long they've been around.
>
> Even tho I may have no clothes on during a scene ~g~, my masochism has nothing
> to do with sex. Some tops I've played with just have never been able to get
> the idea of how disconcerting it can be being worked nicely with a singletail
> (in that dept. they're quite competent), being off in left-field mentally with
> the endorphins, and then have said top start coming at me constantly with "Are
> you coming yet? Are you coming yet?" Aarrrgggghhhhh. That can be soooo
> frustrating. Some very "experienced" players never will get it. I often get
> the idea that they feel they've failed if I don't orgasm and orgasm's just not
> the point with me.
Er, I feel that way about sex.
Orgasm is nice, but it's not the best part. Or even close.
Sometimes you get the really nice ones (you know, 10-20 seconds real time.
A couple of hours subjective), and those are great, but most orgasms
aren't like that. Some of the most intense sexual encounters I've had
involved no orgasm with either party. Nice afterglowing grinning, though
:)
Seth Fogarty
bipsum
DonSideB
I met Mistress at a munch.
We corresponded by email for a month or so, then I met her for dinner.
We corresponded daily and met bi weekly with a group of BDSMers together for
conversation and to get to know each other a couple more months..
I met Mistress for dinner with her husband.
We corresponded and spent time together and talked of our souls and desires. We
never did anything more physical than for me to give her a foot rub while we
talked.
We played together for the first time about six months after we first met. By
that time I knew her and she knew me better than we each knew our respective
spouses at the time we married them.
The BDSM relationships that endure are serious relationships, every bit as
serious as a marraige, and they should be consumated with the same degree of
contemplation and reverence as we reserve for those lifelong vanilla
relationships.
Call it dating, or courtship, or whatever, but if you are looking for a life
partner in BDSM you shouldn't skip any of the steps along the way. Our world is
filled with failed relationships, both vanilla and BDSM, because folks let the
passion race along ahead of the bond and skip the steps that bind souls
together.
Of course, many people take their relationships more lightly and BDSMers go for
one night stands or short term bonds just like vanilla folks, but our
relationships hurt a lot more when we part, so IMHO, date, romance, explore,
and take your time.
You'll find the journey facinating and the destination will be all the more
sweet because the emotions are in place before the passions are indulged.
don
That which does not kill us is a good scene,
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Tidewater Virginia
Janet Miles
> V Squid writes:
>>OK, here's where I'm confuseded. You don't seem to make a differentiation
>>between playing and sex.
> Now, *I'm* confused.
> I personally have never "played" BDSM with anyone aside from my lover
> (which is always sexual and in private). I have always thought that BDSM
> *is*all about sexual expression, which qualifies it as sexual behavior and
> therefore, some form of sex.
Nope, not necessarily.
I don't do BDSM with my husband. It's not his kink.
And I'm not sexual with my playpartners, for various reasons, although I
suppose that could happen at some point with someone (probably about the
time those monkeys fly out of Lynn's butt, xthreadx).
For me, BDSM is sexual in prospect and retrospect; that is, it's really hot
in fantasy, and it's what I masturbate to. But I don't get aroused during
play, and I don't have sexual thoughts when I play. I go off into a nice,
mostly non-verbal, floating, gigglespace.
This is one of these topics that comes around fairly often. In general, I
think, the most commonly found response is, "For you and many others, it's
about sex. For some folks, it isn't. For some folks, it is sometimes but not
others."
I hereby propose "JanetM's Extension of Spectrum's Formulation of Ugol's
Law" (and, P, this isn't directed at you personally; like I said, this topic
comes up over and over): "You are not alone, but you aren't universal,
either."
JanetM
SilverOz
Johnslve <john...@aol.com> wrote:
>v squid writes:
>
>>There -are- people for whom wiitwd is not about sexual expression. And
>>that's all I'm contributing to THAT. This is a subject that often ends up
>>being very contentious. Hell, just on a casual read I can see two things
>>that have been previously hotly contested here in that one sentence alone.
>>I'm officially bowing out.
>
>things, I appreciate the time you took to respond.
*grin*
For those to whom BDSM is basically "a really intense way to do sex",
it can be very hard to comprehend those who don't do it that way.
Like people who are very strongly monosexual can't get bisexuality,
mono-orientation people sometimes think switches "just haven't
settled down" and so on.
Submission is sexual for me. Measured as "a scene will get me wet".
Dominance isn't sexual. A scene doesnt' get me wet. Gets me high,
but not aroused.
I don't do sexual play with Peter, defined as genital contact. Not
*quite* true, he has been known to touch mine, but we don't
do much of it, and it's not designed for sexual pleasure as
the focus.
That's this relationship, I've had sex as the main focus in other
relationships.
When I was dom to Thorfy, I would touch his genitals sometimes, but
again, not for sexual pleasure of either of us.
So... some people don't do sex ebcause for that relationship sex
isn't happening, although the play is sexual. Some don't do sex
because for them, it isn't about sex and they might not even get
aroused.
It's still "pain, discomfort, restraint" though.. It's still "the
consensual exploration of power and/or pain".
SilverOz
CynPlahuta
Orgasm is nice, but it's not the best part. Or even close.
Sometimes you get the really nice ones (you know, 10-20 seconds real time.
A couple of hours subjective), and those are great, but most orgasms
aren't like that. Some of the most intense sexual encounters I've had
involved no orgasm with either party. Nice afterglowing grinning, though
:)
>>
Yes, I definitely see your point. I was using orgasms as a example simply
because that's where it's most blatantly obvious with my partners and me.
When I'm in a masochistic drive there are no thoughts of sex going thru my
mind. From orgasm on down (or up, depending on your point of view ~g~).
Speaking strictly *of* sex however, yes, that's another place I often part
company with my partners since too often having me orgasm seems to be where
it's at for them.
My orgasms are incredibly intense with waves of power going thru me. And
actually, that's not always what I want at a particular moment. Unlike you,
I'd have to say that the most intense sexual encounters I've had do involve
orgasm........it's just that I'm not always in the mood for an intense sexual
encounter.
For me the nicest sexual encounters aren't always the most intense. Heck, I'd
have to say one of the "nicest" sexual encounters I can have is sucking and
pulling on a man's nipples for as long as I want but no way is that intense.
For *me* at least ~g~. But it sure is nice.
Cynthia
Kelvon
<snip>
>It's still "pain, discomfort, restraint" though.. It's still "the
>consensual exploration of power and/or pain".
I don't agree that "pain, discomfort, restraint" have to be
present for it to be BDSM, at least for me.
I'm not a pain person. I may be a psychological sadist to some
degree, but my primary orientation and interest is in control,
very subtle control. I seek to maintin control by making a
slave's will subject to my own, to make the slave believe that
she (my choice of gender) is my property and simply has no reason
do do other than obey.
I think that fits "the consensual exploration of power" and that
it can be done without pain.
Kelvon
Binder
>
> I hereby propose "JanetM's Extension of Spectrum's Formulation of Ugol's
> Law" (and, P, this isn't directed at you personally; like I said, this topic
> comes up over and over): "You are not alone, but you aren't universal,
> either."
Astoundingly rational and well said... and hereby seconded. Do we have
a motion to vote?
Binder
--
SilverOz
Yup - it's "restraint".
It's not bondage type restraint, but it is restraint.
You are restraining their freedom of action....
I think that's what control *is* in a BDSm sense.
SilverOz
--
========================================================================
Australian BDSM Information Site http://www.zed.com.au/~master/abis/
========================================================================
Seth J. Fogarty
aye! (although I prolly don't count. bit much of a newbiew)
Seth Fogarty
bipsum
I. Chris English
> What I meant was getting to know people socially, in a *non*-sexual
> context, without the assumption that sex is an inevitable event in
> the relationship. It just sounded like people were starting to
> negotiate the instant they met in real life.
Oh! Yes, I do that too. The catch is that SM isn't necessarily
sexual for me so I will often start flirting or negotiating with
people *long* before I'd consider sex to be appropriate.
Chris.
I. Chris English
> My reason for posting, however, is to ask a frighteningly newbie
> question: Do BDSMers date?
I think a lot of that depends on how we define date.
In the sense of pre-arranged, shared time, yes, definately. I
routinely have play dates. And I do dinner with friends. Movies.
Agree to hit clubs together, etc.
In the sense of trying people out physically/sexually before
committing, yes. I definately do.
In the sense of going out and being available in the attempt to meet
new partners, yes, I do that in phases.
In the sense of casual fucking, no, but that's just me. I've never
been much into fucking strangers.
Chris.
I. Chris English
> Thoughts?
Whether bdsm constitutes sex or not, whether someone has sex "along
with" their bdsm or not, are highly individual preferences.
Pain play and sex are different things to me, as are sensory
deprivation, d/s, hypnosis, ritual, sensation play, penetration,
orgasm, various ecstatic states, etc. Many of them are easy to
combine, but I don't necessarily require any of them to be mixed with
anything else.
Chris. - Different people are different. Different play styles are different.
Kelvon
>Yup - it's "restraint".
You got me there. I agree.
Kelvon
SilverOz
>
>You are restraining their freedom of action....
>
>I think that's what control *is* in a BDSm sense.
I realise now that when I typed "Pain,discomfort/restraint" I
probably should have typed it as "pain/discomfort/restraint" to
make it clearer that all of them don't have to be present.
To get really broad, it could all be boiled down to "discomfort"
as I think that control has to end up there sooner or later - has
to be about doing things that you wouldn't yourself choose to
do at that instant, only done because the controller says to.
Adaria
the instant I make it, but I didn't have time
to read everyone's post if I still wanted to
post myself. . . .
In article <
slrn81hru9...@zipperii.zip.com.a
u>,
ze...@zip.com.au wrote:
> In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on 28 Oct 1999 23:19:22 GMT
> SilverOz <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote:
> To get really broad, it could all be boiled down to "discomfort"
> as I think that control has to end up there sooner or later - has
> to be about doing things that you wouldn't yourself choose to
> do at that instant, only done because the controller says to.
Exactly. As far as I've seen (and I grant *
extreme* newbie-ness), however you slice
it, BDSM gives one person complete
control of another person's body for some
period of time. Which is why adding
"casual" to "play" only makes the situation
worse for me.
I can see that I was conflating sex and
play, and that's a large distinction for
some people. But the distinction is
irrelevant from where I'm coming from: if
someone's gonna have complete control
of my body, there is *nothing* casual
about that. Whether there's actual sex
involved, by anyone's definition of that
word, doesn't matter. It requires a
significant degree of trust, and so it is
impossible for me to take it lightly,
casually, or in any way other than
seriously. ("Ah, gee, Dari, you're taking all
the *fun* out of it!" ^_^)
Not that everyone else isn't free to do as
they please, of course. And I may feel
differently after a few years in the lifestyle.
I just thought that since my question
launched this discussion, I should insert
into it that for some of us, whether BDSM
is sex or not just plain doesn't matter.
Janet Miles
> I realise now that when I typed "Pain,discomfort/restraint" I
> probably should have typed it as "pain/discomfort/restraint" to
> make it clearer that all of them don't have to be present.
> To get really broad, it could all be boiled down to "discomfort"
> as I think that control has to end up there sooner or later - has
> to be about doing things that you wouldn't yourself choose to
> do at that instant, only done because the controller says to.
Um. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you talking about DS or all of
BDSM? If you're talking about DS, I will refrain from offering an opinion,
but if you're talking about BDSM as a whole, I respectfully disagree (and
will elaborate upon request).
Seth J. Fogarty
<mindless> hyyppnoosssiiissss </mindless>
sorry. I would just like to note that stage hypnotists make for GREAT
public humiliation scenes. (I was ducking into corners for weeks.
But yes...there are differences between the the many, but it's not
just sex and BDSM. I mean, I'll cuddle with just about anyone I feel
comfortable with...it's just cuddling. And it takes a good bit less
intimacy for me to let someone do a back-beating scene than to have sex.
But some things require just as much intimacy as sex...they are just more
personal to me. (a leaning-over-the-lap spanking, for instance, or a
let's-see-how-many-clothespins-WILL-fit). they aren't more serious,
necessarily, and can often be more silly, but they are more intimate. Part
of this may just be physical closeness or vulnerability, I dunno.
Seth Fogarty
bipsum
Sockermom9
>I personally have never "played" BDSM with anyone aside from my lover (which
>is
>always sexual and in private). I have always thought that BDSM *is*all about
>sexual expression, which qualifies it as sexual behavior and therefore, some
>form of sex.
Uh-oh. Here we go, folks.
A lot of people would agree with you, P. I would, for one. Even a scene in
which there is no overtly sexual behavior, no genital contact, etc. is
incredibly arousing to me. That's not likely to stop me from scening
non-sexually, believe me.
But a lot of other people maintain that BDSM is either not sexual to them--i.e.
they do it for personal, spiritual reasons--or not *just* sexual for them--i.e.
they do get off, but they also experience spiritual growth, personal growth,
whatever.
Now, I can certainly claim to have grown personally in my time in the scene,
but I think it's a side-effect, and only tangential to what I do. I'd probably
have attained similar growth if I'd taken up...shit, I dunno; any new hobby
that is physically and emotionally demanding. Like, say, martial arts or
something.
Lynn
New to the world of submission? Check out http://members.aol.com/oldrope/ for
some thoughts for newcomers from those who've been there and decided to stick
around.
Sockermom9
>Altho this style does often seem to be the rule more than the exception
>amongst
>people I know, I've hit the brakes on doing it. The emotional number it did
>on
>me was just too much. Particular if we matched in s&m likes/dislikes but
>when
>we got down to "dating", to doing things outside the realm of s&m, just
>simple
>things like going to movies, going to dinner, animals, hobbies, just
>*talking*
>even, incompatibility reared it's ugly little head.
>Well, I've taken a ton of words to say virtually nothing, so I'll give any
>readers a break ~g~ end the running on.
Hardly.There are lots of different kinds of people here, you've just spoken out
for some of them. We loudmouthed, exhibitionistic polyamorous sluts make it
look like everyone here is a performance artist who'll come for anything that
waves a whip in our faces, but I suspect that there are more of you than there
are of us. Just like I suspect that there are more people who do BDSM and
don't even know the term than there are folks who debate it endlessly.
Binder
You count as much as anyone else here.
(Although some self proclaimed "masters" may disagree. You want to
stand and be counted? Done deal. (That, of course, assuming I have the
right to say you count... this place gets complicated without a
CABAL.))
Binder
--
Binder
> > SilverOz <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote:
> > To get really broad, it could all be boiled down to "discomfort"
> > as I think that control has to end up there sooner or later - has
> > to be about doing things that you wouldn't yourself choose to
> > do at that instant, only done because the controller says to.
>
> Exactly. As far as I've seen (and I grant *
> extreme* newbie-ness), however you slice
> it, BDSM gives one person complete
> control of another person's body for some
> period of time. Which is why adding
> "casual" to "play" only makes the situation
> worse for me.
Look out! Niggle alert!!
To me... BDSM does not give me complete control over another's person
(body included.) I get to play with whatever she (I'm het... so I'll
use she) allows me to play with, that I feel safe and capable enough
to do. That's why I stress negotiation in my life and my writing.
So, I have complete control over those aspects of herself that my
partner has granted me the right to control. She has limits she
expects me honor and I have limits I expect her to honor. Where our
limits overlap we play, and that's pretty much that. The exception?
Where we grow new limits or old ones vanish.
> I can see that I was conflating sex and
> play, and that's a large distinction for
> some people. But the distinction is
> irrelevant from where I'm coming from: if
> someone's gonna have complete control
> of my body, there is *nothing* casual
> about that. Whether there's actual sex
> involved, by anyone's definition of that
> word, doesn't matter. It requires a
> significant degree of trust, and so it is
> impossible for me to take it lightly,
> casually, or in any way other than
> seriously. ("Ah, gee, Dari, you're taking all
> the *fun* out of it!" ^_^)
IMO, casual comes with time. By that's casual in play *style*, not
casual in choice of partners. The greater our comfort level together,
the less structured our play may be. Note the may; sometimes structure
for structure's sake is a lot of fun.
> Not that everyone else isn't free to do as
> they please, of course. And I may feel
> differently after a few years in the lifestyle.
> I just thought that since my question
> launched this discussion, I should insert
> into it that for some of us, whether BDSM
> is sex or not just plain doesn't matter.
I agree. BDSM and sex are not mutually inclusive. Sometimes the two
overlap, and sometimes they don't, for some of us. Others find that
the two are inexorably intertwined. Either way it's fine, since the
only "right" way is what works for the individuals. Some can be
casual, some not; light, dark, intense, or soft are all valid.
Personally, I find sadism without sex to be far more intimate than sex
without sadism... but then, I also like to mix the two from time to
time.
Binder
--
" 'Tis better to Wield a Good Ruler than to Bend before a Bad one."
SSB-B Diplomatic Corps: Marin County, CA -- to reply, remove the idjit
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
SilverOz
Janet Miles <jmi...@use.usit.net> wrote:
>SilverOz <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>
>> I realise now that when I typed "Pain,discomfort/restraint" I
>> probably should have typed it as "pain/discomfort/restraint" to
>> make it clearer that all of them don't have to be present.
>
>> as I think that control has to end up there sooner or later - has
>> to be about doing things that you wouldn't yourself choose to
>> do at that instant, only done because the controller says to.
>
>BDSM? If you're talking about DS, I will refrain from offering an opinion,
>but if you're talking about BDSM as a whole, I respectfully disagree (and
>will elaborate upon request).
Well.. if you take it as "pain or discomfort or restraint" then I'm
talking about all BDSM.
IF you are talking "discomfort" then I did give it too much of a
DS slant in the way I explained it. Because of course discomfort
is part of it for non-DS folk too. Like DS folk, it's
not the *goal*, the goal is eventual pleasure from that discomfort.
But discomfort is the key in my opinion.
SilverOz
- rapping self on knuckles for too damn much bias
SilverOz
Adaria <ada...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I am sorry to have to break my new rule
>the instant I make it, but I didn't have time
>to read everyone's post if I still wanted to
>post myself. . . .
>
>In article <
>slrn81hru9...@zipperii.zip.com.a
>u>,
> ze...@zip.com.au wrote:
>> In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on 28 Oct 1999 23:19:22 GMT
>> SilverOz <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>> as I think that control has to end up there sooner or later - has
>> to be about doing things that you wouldn't yourself choose to
>> do at that instant, only done because the controller says to.
>
>extreme* newbie-ness), however you slice
>it, BDSM gives one person complete
>control of another person's body for some
>period of time. Which is why adding
>"casual" to "play" only makes the situation
>worse for me.
>
Whoa! Check your assumptions...
Complete?
I can go to a club and chat to some people. I might grab an aquaintance's
hair and "force" him to his knees and we do a bit of fun - maybe I pinch
his nipple, maybe I slap his backside.
That's a scene, that's BDSM. Where's the complete?
Maybe I go further. I tell him to lean over a table and a crop his
backside. I get it quite red. That's a scene, that's casual play,
where's the complete?
Maybe I tie him up too. There are people all around, he calls "safeword".
What now? WHere's the complete?
THink hard about what *you* mean by "play". And what *you* mean by
casual. Then ask others what *they* mean. ANd work out what assumptions
you are making...
SilverOz
-^-^spectrum-^^-
>Johnslve <john...@aol.com> wrote:
>> V Squid writes:
>>>OK, here's where I'm confuseded. You don't seem to make a
>>>differentiation between playing and sex.
>> Now, *I'm* confused.
>> I personally have never "played" BDSM with anyone aside from my
>> lover (which is always sexual and in private). I have always
>> thought that BDSM *is*all about sexual expression, which qualifies
>> it as sexual behavior and therefore, some form of sex.
JM:
>Nope, not necessarily.
>
>I don't do BDSM with my husband. It's not his kink.
>
>And I'm not sexual with my playpartners, for various reasons,
>although I suppose that could happen at some point with someone
>(probably about the time those monkeys fly out of Lynn's butt,
>xthreadx).
>
>For me, BDSM is sexual in prospect and retrospect; that is, it's
>really hot in fantasy, and it's what I masturbate to. But I don't
>get aroused during play, and I don't have sexual thoughts when I
>play. I go off into a nice, mostly non-verbal, floating,
>gigglespace.
>
>This is one of these topics that comes around fairly often. In
>general, I think, the most commonly found response is, "For you
>and many others, it's about sex. For some folks, it isn't. For
>some folks, it is sometimes but not others."
Some time ago, I got Rob Jellinghaus to put this into the FAQ: for
some folks, BDSM==sex. For some folks BDSM<>sex. And for others it
may or may not, depending on the people involved, the roles taken,
the phase of the moon, and the hormones involved.
>I hereby propose "JanetM's Extension of Spectrum's Formulation of
>Ugol's Law" (and, P, this isn't directed at you personally; like I
>said, this topic comes up over and over): "You are not alone, but
>you aren't universal, either."
A minor correction: I had this out with Big Al (whom I'm *still*
trying to contact in regard to periodically posting the welcome)
when he first said it. What I said was:
"You are not the only one."
That's not the same as "You are not alone." The latter implies
automatic community, whihc is certainly not the case. The
statement I made merely indicates that somewhere out there are
others like you. The reality is that by reading this, you have
probably already found a pretty good place to find those others,
but still, it's not easy.
-^-^spectrum-^^- spectrum@magenta..COM
Tales of ASBWorld and Pervhome: http://magenta.com/lmnop/users/spectrum
"We go through life parched and empty,
standing knee deep in a river, dying of thirst"
- Jones/McDill/Lee
Johnslve
>>I hereby propose "JanetM's Extension of Spectrum's Formulation of
>>Ugol's Law"
<snip>
: "You are not alone, but
>>you aren't universal, either."
>
and Spectrum's
> What I said was:
>
>"You are not the only one."
Must say, I prefer Janet's version. That is the reason that I, and I venture
to say others as well, come and hang in here.
Thanks for your thoughts :-)
P.
Live, love and laugh
louise
wrote:
>> What I said was:
>
>"You are not the only one."
>
>That's not the same as "You are not alone." The latter implies
>automatic community, whihc is certainly not the case. The
>statement I made merely indicates that somewhere out there are
>others like you. The reality is that by reading this, you have
>probably already found a pretty good place to find those others,
>but still, it's not easy.
Hi Spectrum! :)
So, do we accept on faith that others like us are out there? i'm not
sure that i believe that i am "not the only one", after posting in the
newsgroups for over three years not to mention dozens of mailing
lists, message boards, real life interactions at numerous BDSM groups
and occasional events, and so on. It's easy to say "You're not the
only one", but what makes everyone so sure that this is always the
case? It seems to apply for details and anecdotes, but as for the
entirety of one's kink i'm not so sure. At some point, one must
either have faith or state that there is something wrong with the
truism itself.
i don't suppose you'd go for "You are not the only one, in all
likelihood" , would you? (grin)
--
louise
http://www.magenta.com/lmnop/users/louise
Already we are boldly launched upon the deep; but soon we shall
be lost in its unshored, harborless immensities. -- H. Melville, 1851
louise
wrote:
>(That, of course, assuming I have the
>right to say you count... this place gets complicated without a
>CABAL.))
Without a Cabal?! Oh no, i'm sure i've been away too long now! What
has been going on around here! Don't provisional members get notified
of *anything*?? Tanith!! (listening to the empty void)
Oh. That's right; she hasn't been posting in a while, but still, i was
sure that the Cabal would continue on quite nicely, that is if there
ever were a Cabal, TNIC etc.
Has this turn of events interrupted the flow of chocolate? This could
have tremendous effects in the international chocolate trade. i notice
Spyral mentioning Food of the Gods from Belize... perhaps the Cabal,
if there were one, fled south? Oh my, oh my, i don't even know
Spanish.... :)
Janet D. Miles
On 30 Oct 1999 02:40:25 GMT, in soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm
-^-^spectrum-^^- wrote:
> Janet Miles <jmi...@use.usit.net> wrote:
> >I hereby propose "JanetM's Extension of Spectrum's Formulation of
> >Ugol's Law" (and, P, this isn't directed at you personally; like I
> >said, this topic comes up over and over): "You are not alone, but
> >you aren't universal, either."
>
> A minor correction: I had this out with Big Al (whom I'm *still*
> trying to contact in regard to periodically posting the welcome)
> when he first said it. What I said was:
>
> "You are not the only one."
Hell and damnation; as usual, I've put my foot in my mouth up to the
hip.
Spectrum, I am sorry for misquoting you; I *should* have looked it up,
and I *know* better than to rely on memory for things like that.
> That's not the same as "You are not alone." The latter implies
> automatic community, whihc is certainly not the case. The
> statement I made merely indicates that somewhere out there are
> others like you. The reality is that by reading this, you have
> probably already found a pretty good place to find those others,
> but still, it's not easy.
You are correct; my misquote changes your meaning completely, and I
regret the error, and offer my sincere and abject apologies. I cannot
think of any reparations to offer, however, except to try to correct
the misstatement when I encounter it in the future (since I'm the one
who created it).
JanetM
--
Posted by Janet Miles <jmi...@usit.net> <http://www.public.usit.net/jmiles>
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: East Tennessee
Janet D. Miles
On 30 Oct 1999 04:27:27 GMT, in soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm Johnslve
wrote:
> IRT Janet's
> : "You are not alone, but
> >>you aren't universal, either."
> >
> and Spectrum's
> > What I said was:
> >
> >"You are not the only one."
>
> Must say, I prefer Janet's version. That is the reason that I, and I venture
> to say others as well, come and hang in here.
Well, but Spectrum is right, and I was wrong. Wrong twice: first, in
misquoting him instead of checking sources, which I *should* have
done, and second, in misquoting him in such a way as to change the
meaning of what he said.
I do come to SSBB for a sense of community, but the existence of SSBB
doesn't guarantee community to everyone in the kinky world; some
people will find it a very unsupportive place. There may be a perfect
match for someone, but if Person A can't find Person B, it does no
good to assure Person A that Person B must exist.
Sockermom9
>Personally, I find sadism without sex to be far more intimate than sex
>without sadism... but then, I also like to mix the two from time to
>time.
Oh, dear lord, yes. For me, sex is just...sex. Pain is the turn-on. All that
squishy meshing of body-parts is just exercise, really. Pain, bondage,
whatever, is what makes it less like doing sit-ups and more like something fun.
Binder
>
> Spectrum, I am sorry for misquoting you; I *should* have looked it up,
> and I *know* better than to rely on memory for things like that.
>
>
> > That's not the same as "You are not alone." The latter implies
> > automatic community, whihc is certainly not the case. The
> > statement I made merely indicates that somewhere out there are
> > others like you. The reality is that by reading this, you have
> > probably already found a pretty good place to find those others,
> > but still, it's not easy.
>
> You are correct; my misquote changes your meaning completely, and I
> regret the error, and offer my sincere and abject apologies. I cannot
> think of any reparations to offer, however, except to try to correct
> the misstatement when I encounter it in the future (since I'm the one
> who created it).
Now that I compare the two statements, I find I prefer the Janet
version... precisely because I *AM* the only one. While there is no
single aspect of myself that in itself is unique, the combination of
those traits is singular, unique, and nonrepeatable. (That last a
blessing for others, I'm certain.)
I now know, through SSBB and similar venues, that I am not alone in
predelictions for pain, or dominance, or devious toy design, or a
myriad of other possibly stress inducing thinking and behavior.
(I don't think I would have found a similar acceptence (most
particularly of myself) through the local meatlife scene... but that's
another story, I suspect.)
SilverOz
DL2ndEditn <dl2nd...@aol.com> wrote:
>>to be about doing things that you wouldn't yourself choose to
>>do at that instant, only done because the controller says to.
>>
>
>since he likes to hurt me and since I'm wired to get wet at being hurt, but I
>think I experience my dominant's control most strongly when I find myself
>desiring -- fully, yearningly, gratefully, obsessively -- something for which I
>would feel aversion, except that I know he wants to give it to me.
>
>For me, that's not an experience of *discomfort.* It's an experience of
>literally feeling his will transforming mine. I think the word "control" works
>much better for me than "discomfort" in describing that experience.
I think it's a goal though... Same as the paintype doesn't do
it for pain as such, but the feelings that flow from that pain.
I think we all seek pleasure, it's the way of getting theret hat
makes it BDSM. You still have the discomfort - "something for which I
would feel aversion", but the BDSM takes that initial discomfort
and changes it.
Sure - the concept isn't perfect, I dunno you can manage to encompass
human experience in 3 words, whether th ose are "pain discomfort
restraint" or "safe sane consnesual" unless you realise they are
more states of mind and pointers than absolutes.
I don't find bondage to be "discomfort" as such, the pleasure
far outweighs the discomfort, so much that I actively seek it. But
it's still *there*. I just process it differently because I am
kinked. That's what makes it BDSM.
SilverOz
Mr. Strange
admittedly it's kinda like sex for the head, but consider where the mind can
take us... not to mention the sweat i get from a few hours of swinging a toy
is much more fulfilling than the sweat from "doing situps".
Sockermom9 wrote in message
<19991030214735...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...
John Warren
>is much more fulfilling than the sweat from "doing situps".
Ah, but have you ever had a lover play the "I'll keep sucking as long as you
keep doing situps" game?
Stephanie
>Am I alone on this? Does no one in this
>community date for a while before things
>get physical? Maybe I'm drawing an
>over- hasty conclusion from what I've
>managed
>to glean from the NG, but it is the
>impression I've got.
I personally have never entered into a reationship with the specific
intention of gaining a BDSM partner. I have always had a very
traditional dating life. Only when that dating led to a more serious
relationship did I reveal my interests in wiitwd. It's a trust issue
with me. I will admit that with my current partner, we did "get
physical" right away, but in a very vanilla way. He is new to all this
and we are having fun incorporating D/s into what was already a
wonderful and fulfilling relationship for both of us. We have been
together for almost a year now and are planning to be married. Hope
this is helpful to you!
Steph
Adaria
Sorry to go so far back in time, but it's my
usual "so much to read, so little time"
problem. . . .
In article <
3819FD91...@idjit.jps.net>,
bin...@idjit.jps.net wrote:
> Look out! Niggle alert!!
And I shall niggle right back! ^_^
> To me... BDSM does not give me complete control over another's person
> (body included.) I get to play with whatever she (I'm het... so I'll
> use she) allows me to play with, that I feel safe and capable enough
> to do. That's why I stress negotiation in my life and my writing.
My niggle: those limits only exist in so far
as you are willing to respect them. If
you've got someone tied up and helpless,
you *do* have complete control of their
body--there's not a thing they can do if
you do decide to cross one of those limits
you promised to respect. Probably not
even criminal charges after the fact--the
justice system would (and probably
does!) laugh at anyone who would try to
press charges for anything done to them
while they were voluntarily tied up.
Which is why I said I've got to know
someone really well before she gets to do
anything BDSMy (whether you define that
as sex or not, play or not, casual or not)
with me. I've got to know that my limits
are real to her, and not something to be
tossed aside the instant I can't resist. I
know that that's the way things are
supposed to be, but since when has the
real world been a place where things are
the way they're supposed to be?
So that's why I was so worried about what
looked like people being very quick to put
themselves in someone else's power.
Binder
>
> Hi, all!
>
> Sorry to go so far back in time, but it's my
> usual "so much to read, so little time"
> problem. . . .
that sounds all too familiar... the *only* way I can keep up is to
read daily, and even then, numerous hasty judgments (is Zie giving
good header?) are required.
> In article <
> 3819FD91...@idjit.jps.net>,
> bin...@idjit.jps.net wrote:
> > Look out! Niggle alert!!
>
> And I shall niggle right back! ^_^
Oh doody!
> > To me... BDSM does not give me complete control over another's person
> > (body included.) I get to play with whatever she (I'm het... so I'll
> > use she) allows me to play with, that I feel safe and capable enough
> > to do. That's why I stress negotiation in my life and my writing.
>
> My niggle: those limits only exist in so far
> as you are willing to respect them. If
> you've got someone tied up and helpless,
> you *do* have complete control of their
> body--there's not a thing they can do if
> you do decide to cross one of those limits
> you promised to respect.
re-niggle: I like to play with people that appear to desire to remain
in my vicinity. If I were to go past the line where they wish to, but
can't, stop the scene in progress, I stand a very high risk of loss.
Given the large investment of time, energy, emotion, and vulnerability
I devote to getting to know them, such losses can be quite
devastating. One of my limits precludes my stepping over into
non-consent, as that is (IMO&E) quite destructive to a trusting
relationship.
That limit is, for me, mostly hardwired. The fact that I can do
whatever I want holds very little interest for me; it's the fact that
she *wants* me to do what I love doing that I find most enthralling.
> Probably not
> even criminal charges after the fact--the
> justice system would (and probably
> does!) laugh at anyone who would try to
> press charges for anything done to them
> while they were voluntarily tied up.
I don't worry about the criminal charges, because I wouldn't find that
to be nearly as distressing as the fact that I screwed up so much that
she might desire such legal recourse. OTOH, legal charges would still
be enforcable, if the act was heinous to bypass the consent to be
tied, as it were. Take the breath control debate, as an example... one
might consent to the act, but if a death results, I'm certain the law
would take it *quite* seriously.
> Which is why I said I've got to know
> someone really well before she gets to do
> anything BDSMy (whether you define that
> as sex or not, play or not, casual or not)
> with me. I've got to know that my limits
> are real to her, and not something to be
> tossed aside the instant I can't resist. I
> know that that's the way things are
> supposed to be, but since when has the
> real world been a place where things are
> the way they're supposed to be?
Well, as a very small and rather skewed sample, here (that being SSBB)
would be a real world exception, I believe. While some of us may lean
toward non-consent as a fantasy, I think that very few of us actually
practice that, except in a consensual context. With very few
exceptions (and taking the posters here at posting face value) I feel
that this *is* a place where things are largely "the way they're
supposed to be." For me, there are more than a few people that post
here that I do trust, emphatically, even among the very few that I
don't agree with.
Personally, the greater the intimacy, the more powerful the play. The
longer I know someone, and the greater my knowledge of them, and the
greater their transparency, the more intense I can be. But, part of
developing trust in another requires considerable demonstration on
many levels, including playtime. If we never play, she'll never know
*for certain* that I will respect her limits; she may believe that I
will, she may trust that I will, but never truly know. However, if I
demonstrate over time that her limits are respected, and that I will
not truly harm her, she will begin to have that sepcific trust in me
with a solid grounding in reality.
> So that's why I was so worried about what
> looked like people being very quick to put
> themselves in someone else's power.
I confess to the same concern, especially regarding those without much
experience, or education. Seems to me that more than a few people over
the years have had some serious misconceptions about what to expect in
a BDSM relationship (or any relationship, for that matter) and jump
in, starry eyed, with both feet, only to find that it isn't all soft
sand under the surface, but broken glass scattered about to snag the
unwary.