Power Imbalance v. Power Exchange
Scarlett
During the course of a recent interaction, I ran across a phrase where
someone noted that BDSM is in part based upon a voluntary power imbalnce
between the respective players. Although, I'm willing to admit that this
is a valid point... it was my initial reaction to think that rather the
d/s involved was more of a voluntary power exchange.
Is this an unnecessary distinction?
Or even better yet... how does this this equation (power imbalance v.
power exchcange) fit within a lifestyle BDSM relationship?
Any comments?
Sincerely,
Scarlett
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to ad...@anon.penet.fi.
Jon Jacobs
>
>During the course of a recent interaction, I ran across a phrase where
>someone noted that BDSM is in part based upon a voluntary power imbalnce
>between the respective players. Although, I'm willing to admit that this
>is a valid point... it was my initial reaction to think that rather the
>d/s involved was more of a voluntary power exchange.
Well, this seems once again a question more of terminology than anything
else. As far as I can see, a "voluntary power imbalance" is both the
intent and the result of a genuine power exchange.
>Or even better yet... how does this this equation (power imbalance v.
>power exchcange) fit within a lifestyle BDSM relationship?
"Life-style" in itself, really, has little meaning in this context, since
many switches live in what I'd certainly call life-style relationships.
But in a life-style master-slave relationship, this equation is the
erotic basis of the relationship. Does that help any?
Jon Jacobs
Laurelie
My cosmic twin Scarlett wrote:
> During the course of a recent interaction, I ran across a phrase where
> someone noted that BDSM is in part based upon a voluntary power imbalnce
> between the respective players. Although, I'm willing to admit that this
> is a valid point... it was my initial reaction to think that rather the
> d/s involved was more of a voluntary power exchange.
>
> Is this an unnecessary distinction?
Well, I know you've been lurking for a while, but I don't know
if you've been reading the numerous Jon Jacobs/Power Exchange
threads. If you had, I think what I'm about to say might make
more sense.
As Jon has pointed out to you in this thread, the distinctions
are only important for definitional reasons. However, it is
Jon who has made such reasons important. Jon has defined a
genuine power exchange as a total power exchange. The submissive
must not have the power to control the scene in any way, and that
includes the use of safewords. Anything else is "fake" or
"faux" d&s, according to Jon.
Many people have argued with this definition, including myself.
I don't believe it has to be an all or nothing situation.
The term Voluntary Power Imbalance may be a useful one if
"Genuine Power Exchange" is going to be defined the way that
Jon Jacobs defines it.
The reason I say this is because, a power imbalance does not
assume that the imbalance has to be *total*. There can
be a power imbalance if someone has *more* power than
someone else. I would argue that a power imbalance does
*not*, as Jon has suggested, mean the same thing as a
power exchange, as he has defined it.
Consider the following. As a sub, I only have the power to
prevent something from being done to me if I have a safeword.
I can't control anything else. The dominant, on the other hand,
has much more power during the scene. He/she can do anything
he/she wants save for those things that the submissive safewords
him/her for. Even though the submissive retains some power,
this can still be termed a power imbalance-- because
the parties do not retain *equal* power. It cannot, however,
under Jon's definitions, be termed a genuine power exchange-- because
all power is not given to one party.
So. . . for my purposes. . .I'd much rather use the term
Voluntary Power Imbalance because it encompasses both
partial and total exchanges of power.
Sincerely,
Laurel
Alex Martelli
...[answering Laurelie]...
>>Consider the following. As a sub, I only have the power to
>>prevent something from being done to me if I have a safeword.
>>I can't control anything else. The dominant, on the other hand,
In common political parlance, you only have "veto" power. With
the further proviso that safeword terminates a scene entirely.
>>the parties do not retain *equal* power. It cannot, however,
>>under Jon's definitions, be termed a genuine power exchange-- because
>>all power is not given to one party.
>Consider this: all *power* in the above scenario lies with the
>submissive. The dom can do whatever the sub *allows*. Everything that
...
>liking. She may not use it that way, but she and she alone has power
>over events
What nonsense. First of all, it's self-evident that the power
wielded by the dom is _at least_ as great as that wielded by the
sub, since the dom may also interrupt the scene whenever they
want. Thus, "all power...lies with the sub" and "she and she
alone has power over events" are both examples of self-evidently
false statements, as well as ones inflammatory in intent.
But it's also easy to show that the power wielded by the dom
is actually strictly larger than that wielded by the sub.
In the spirit of Arrow's axiomatical theory of voting, or Akerlof's many
little sketches of models for non-standard societies and markets (e.g.,
a caste-based one), I would like to offer a mathematical framework for
this... it may be of interest and have wider applicability. The math
is not complicated, and the intuitive equivalent of the disequation
seeked as the first result is easy enough to ascertain anyway.
Define a "scene" as a set of P potential actions that may occur in any
sequence of no more than N successive actions, with repetitions allowed
(these terms simplify the math but change no important issues towards
establishing the disequation in question). Please note that the theory
covers a lifetime relationship as well, with "scene"="lifetime", and
"safeword"="goodbye".
Only one sequence (actual scene) will actually take place, out of the
K=1+P+P^2+P^3+...+P^N possible ones (where ^ denotes raising to a
power, in the arithmetic as opposed to the BDSM sense:-). Absolute
total power available in the scene can then be defined as the amount of
information needed to determine 1 out of K possibilities, i.e. log2(K)
(log to the base 2 of K) bits. This is slightly more than Nlog2(P)
because of the extra possibility that the scene will be interrupted
before N actions are actualized, and slightly less than Nlog2(P+1)
because of the assumption that the scene, once interrupted, cannot be
resumed. Logarithmic measure makes sense for the same reasons as,
say, in information theory -- for example, the power available
in two independent, successive scenes is the sum of the powers
available in each scene.
How MUCH power does the sub actually hold, in this mathematical
model? It is obvious that they hold less than N bits, for all
they get is the chance to stop the scene N times, each time by
making a single yes/no decision, i.e. providing 1 bit of info
each time -- _less_ than N bits, because once the safeword IS
used no further chances apply, and also to take into account
that the _dom_ might also terminate the scene after M<N actions.
But the disequation can almost as easily be made even stricter.
Basically, the sub holds (less than) the power to determine
the _length_ of the sequence (less than that, for the dom might
make it shorter than the sub would have chosen) -- 1 of N
possibilities -- thus, less than log2(N) bits!
So, without any difficulty, we establish, calling S the sub's
power, D the dom's power, and T=S+D the total absolute power
available in the scene, that
T>Nlog2(P)
S<log2(N)
D=T-S>Nlog2(P)-log2(N)
Thus, the dom will be wielding strictly more power than the sub
whenever D>S, that is, Nlog2(P)-log2(N)>log2(N), that is,
raising both sides to the power of two, P^N>N^2. This, of course,
is in turn trivially easy to establish, holding, in particular,
for all nontrivial cases, where P>2 (i.e, where there are more
than two possible different actions on the dom's part at each
step in the scene).
It's interesting to generalize this result to _negotiation_, which DOES
give both partners equal power since it takes place _before_ the scene
(i.e., before any power is yet exchanged): how much power lies in
negotiation, which can be modeled for each partner by the possibility
of reducing the possibilities set from (P+X) down to P, and how much in
the execution of the scene itself, where choices are actually made
between the P choices left? This is vastly simplified, though the
essential result not changed, by considering nonsafeword scenes only --
ones where total power _equals_ Nlog2(P) (_both_ partners must be
considered committed to carrying out exactly N actions, neither more
nor less, for the math's simplification to be useful).
Here we see that total power available before negotiation had to be
Nlog2(P+X), and after negotiation Nlog2(P), thus it's obvious that the
amount of power exerted during negotiation (i.e., the amount of choice
removed by further interaction) must be the difference, i.e.
N(log2(P+X)-log2(P))=Nlog2(1+X/P). Symmetry also reveals clearly that
each partner must have exerted half of that power. The total amount of
power exerted in negotiation by both partners will be lower than that
left for the dom to exert in execution iff:
Nlog2(1+X/P) < Nlog2(P)
i.e., (1+X/P)<P, given monotonicity of log2(), i.e. (P+X)<P^2,
i.e. X<(P^2-P). This is interesting because it reveals that,
if enough choices P are _left_, the amount of power exerted during
negotiation by removing even a large number X of a-priori choices
is STILL lower than the amount of power exerted during execution;
i.e., negotiation can be _quite_ picky in the "setting boundaries"
sense of forbidding certain activities, and STILL leave LOTS
more power in the dom's hands during scene execution, than was
actually exerted in the negotiation itself!
This is actually quite obvious on reflection -- for example,
*halving* the number of a-priori possible actions, which does
intuitively qualify for a very significant sort of boundary
setting, exerts just N bits of power, leaving Nlog2(P)>N
to the dom during execution (for P left >2, of course)!
On the other hand, negotiation that is seen as _scripting_ of the scene
in advance _does_ exert a huge amount of power and leave just about
nothing for the dom during execution -- at the limit, if the whole
scene is pretedermined, no power at all (though, in fact, presumably
still the log2(N) bits coming from safeword-equivalent, i.e. the
ability to stop the scene in advance on emergencies).
This is intuitively satisfying to those of us who are quite comfortable
with safewords and boundary-setting negotiation (which the model shows
remove little power from the dom during scene's execution), while
not particularly liking rigidly pre-scripted scenes (e.g., ones with
huge components of predetermined ritual); i.e., the model's results
appear to match such intuitive feelings well. This, of course, says
nothing about either the model or the feelings per se, just about the
fact that they're well matched!
Many sorts of generalizations are possible and appealing. For
example, suppose that the P possible choices are numbered 1
to P, with lower numbers intuitively corresponding to "lighter"
actions, higher numbers to "heavier" ones. Now, what amount
of power is removed from the dom by forcing actions to occur
in non-descending sequence?
This is a study of the common paradigm whereby scenes are
expected to be a crescendo of energy level, versus my favourite
kink for scenes where energy level flows and ebbs, up and down,
more fluidly. I haven't checked the maths, but let's do so
together as a sort of check on the theory... they're easy.
Clearly, the number of possible scenes, with the constraints,
diminishes from P^N, to the number of choices for N out of P things,
with repetitions allowed; indeed, once the set of N actions is chosen,
their order is determined by the growing-energy constraint. But the
ratio among the two is exactly N! (factorial of N: 1 times 2 times 3
... times N), thus the difference between the power in constrained and
unconstrained scenes is log2(N!); for large N (say>10), Stirling's
approximation of the gamma function tells us that N! about equals..:
square root(2pi N) times N^N times e^(-N)
(where pi=3.1415926..., e=2.718281828...)
so, log2(N!) about equals log2(2pi)/2+log2(N)/2+Nlog2(N)-Nlog2(e),
which for large N can be further approximated to N times log2(N/e).
This is the cost in bits of the ordering constraint in the scene;
note that the "large N" approximation means "long scenes" (in terms
of number of elementary actions that can make up the sequence).
So, the amount of power _left_ in the scene's execution is
approximately N log2(P) - N log2(N/e) = N log2(eP/N).
That's interesting because it reveals that placing such a constraint on
the scene (for long enough scenes) is roughly equivalent to dividing
the set of possible actions by N/e, proportional the scene's length;
thus, the constraint is more severe, linearly, for longer scenes, which
corresponds well to intuition. The _absolute_ amount of power lost is
_only_ a function of scene's length, independent of number P of a priori
possible choices for elementary scene-actions; however, clearly, the
_relative_ amount of power lost becomes lesser as P increases. The
_fraction_ of power lost is in fact, roughly and asymptotically,
log(N/e)/log(P) (logarithm base not significant since we're taking a
ratio of logs to the same base).
If one thinks of "a scene" as, say, "a flogging", or "a spanking",
the number P of possible distinct scene-actions is relatively modest:
different types and intensities of strokes of the given kind, which
can be quantized into, say, a few tens, perhaps a few hundreds at
most, of distinguishable scene-actions. In this case, the constraint
of increasing intensity is significant in reducing the power
inherent in the scene's execution, for long enough scenes.
Vice versa, if the "scene" is unconstrained enough in other senses,
allowing every which kind of atomic actions, then the constraint of
increasing energy becomes relatively less important. Still, the
fraction lost only decreases inversely to the logarithm of number P of
distinct scene-actions, i.e., pretty slowly as P increases.
Personally, I find this sort of result quite an acceptable match
for my intuitive assessment of the factors in play. YMMV, of course.
It would be very interesting to try to model in this way other
sorts of constraints and variations, particularly fuzzier ones;
however, I suspect that analytical results could get harder and
harder to obtain. Still, inequations, asymptotes, and trend
indicating results, for example, could still be obtained, to say
nothing of a basis for numerical exploration of the field with
the aid of cheap workstations and standard numerical exploration
and visualization software packages.
Alex
--
____ Alex Martelli, Bologna, Italia -- mailbox permanently overfull!
\SM/___
\/\bi/ O'er the Morning of my day, underneath the Net I stray,
\/ Now intreating Iron Wire, now intreating Burning Fire...
Alan Smith
don't of mathematical modeling: Don't eat the menu. This is just a model, and
may not reflect reality at all.]
In article <alex.79...@cirfid.unibo.it> al...@uqbar.cirfid.unibo.it (Alex Martelli) writes:
>I would like to offer a mathematical framework for
>this... it may be of interest and have wider applicability. The math
>is not complicated, and the intuitive equivalent of the disequation
>seeked as the first result is easy enough to ascertain anyway.
I think we need more math around here. (Not complicated my foot)
I'll be using alex's notation for simplicity.
>Define a "scene" as a set of P potential actions that may occur in any
>sequence of no more than N successive actions, with repetitions allowed
>(these terms simplify the math but change no important issues towards
>establishing the disequation in question). Please note that the theory
>covers a lifetime relationship as well, with "scene"="lifetime", and
>"safeword"="goodbye".
>Only one sequence (actual scene) will actually take place, out of the
>K=1+P+P^2+P^3+...+P^N possible ones
Okay, here my theories depart from alex's. I define Power as the total
number of possibilities excluded from reality. This makes the total
amount of power useable T=K-1 (since one possibility actually happened)
I also exclude the initial 1 in the K term.
The sub's power depends on when they use it. it increases as the sub
excludes the number of possibilities where they could have stopped the scene
(S=M) [<laugh> Symmetry in action, I guess] and it increases dramatically
if the sub uses safeword by the number of future possibilities it excludes.
(S=M+P+P^2+P^3+...+P^(N-M)) So the maximum useable power the sub has is
if they go one action and safeword, to wit S=1+P+P^2+...+P^(N-1)
The Dom's power also changes over time, by D=(P+P^2+...+P^M)-1 His maximum
Power is if the sub allows him to go all the way to the end, where D=T
Here something interesting happens. At the end of the scene S=N,
and D=T, so S+D=T+N The total power wielded by both parties is actually
greater than the total wieldable power. This is because the dom has the
power to stop the scene N times as well. (the dom does not pick up the
N term, though, because cascading P+P^2+etc denote the number of times
he could have gone so far and stopped) I find that Alex's T=D+S something
of a hasty statement, though.
If the dom stops the scene before N, they pick up the subs safewording
power as well, to the term D=(P+P^2+P^3+...+P^M)-1+(P+P^2+P^3+...+P^(N-M))
But that's not too important.
The Dom has more pwer than the sub at all times when the sub doesn't safeword
(assuming P>1), but what if the sub safewords? Well the dom has more power
when P+P^2+P^3+...+P^M-1>M+P+P^2+P^3+...+P^(N-M). When this happens is
some time after the midpoint of the scene,depending on the relationsip between
P and M. By this model it is possible for the sub to wield more power than
the dom.
>It's interesting to generalize this result to _negotiation_,
Ouch. Okay, negotiation. Here the power wielded is the power to reduce
the K function, from Y=(P+X)+(P+X)^2+...+(P+X)^N to the K we already know.
I don't really feel symmytry is applicable here, so we'll say that the
Total wieldable power in negotiation is Z=X+X^2+X^3+...+X^N At points
where Z>T and the sub actually held Z (unlikely, I'll admit) then the
Sub held more power than the dom again. However:
>if enough choices P are _left_, the amount of power exerted during
>negotiation by removing even a large number X of a-priori choices
>is STILL lower than the amount of power exerted during execution;
Is still the case. It is possible to extend the model further, with
scripted scenes, cresendo-sceneing, etc. But I don't particularly feel
like typing it all in. I don't think either alex or I are "right", but these
are simply two alternate methods of looking at the same thing. However,
I'm leaving my model open to criticism (as I'm sure he is), I may have
forgotten something.
Big Al. S=M... Jeez.
Jon Jacobs
>In <061432Z...@anon.penet.fi> an12...@anon.penet.fi (Laurelie) writes:
>>Consider the following. As a sub, I only have the power to
>>prevent something from being done to me if I have a safeword.
>
In most cases, the ultimate power to end what is going on. In all cases
at least some power.
Surely the dom can do anything sie chooses
>to, subject only to hir physical ability and judgement of the deed and
>its consequences.
Absolutely not, if the unsafe word has the power to cease action.
A safeword agreement, or any other sort of
>negotiation, is a way of informing the parties what each other wants,
>what rules they would like the other to abide by, and (perhaps tacitly)
>what the likely consequences might be if the agreement is flouted. It
>does not, however, pose any physical bar to such flouting.
That's a common belief, all right. But if that's what you want. language
is what you need, normal communication, not an unsafe word. The power of
the unsafe word remains with the submissive and is inescapable. Denying
that is simply ignoring reality, and the only remaining question is why
reality is being ignored.
>In <3fmfqt$h...@panix3.panix.com>, vi...@panix.com (the one and only true
>vixen) writes:
>>Consider this: all *power* in the above scenario lies with the
>>submissive. The dom can do whatever the sub *allows*.
>
>What is this power, that can be exercised even though the sub be securely
>chained in a soundproof dungeon with a dom twice hir size? What magic has
>a safeword, to be able to unlock the chains, avert the dom's physical
>strength, and walk free?
No, which is one reason that I call it an unsafe word, since some
submissives do actually seem to believe in its power to provide safety.
But your example doesn't mean anything. If a dominant is going to do
something genuinely evil to a submissive, then nothing will stop him.
That's not the situation that unsafe words are believed to be efficacious
for. They're generally meant to stop what is going on, and they
generally do.
>Is the power which is being discussed here an objective reality, like
>physical strength, or is it a conventional notion, a fiction, with which
>(some) people choose to structure (some of) their relationships with
>others?
Yes, when genuine power exchange is occurring, the power we're talking
about is an objective reality.
Jon Jacobs
Alex Martelli
...
>>Define a "scene" as a set of P potential actions that may occur in any
>>distinct scene-actions, i.e., pretty slowly as P increases.
>
<Bow> Thanks! It's nice to know that _someone_ has appreciated
my efforts...!
I've been thinking about scenes of length not limited a priori.
It occurs to me that the way to make sure the power equation
converges in such cases is probably to apply a _discount factor_,
for all of the same reasons for which it's used to compute
present-value for a future expected cash flow... strokes which
could come in the far future simply don't have the same "present
power" as those one faces _right now_.
Alex
--
____ Alex Martelli, Bologna, Italia -- mailbox permanently overfull!
\SM/___
\/\bi/ Mutual Forgiveness of each Vice,
\/ Such are the Gates of Paradise.
Richard Kennaway
>In article <3g0gd8$5qs@nyx rken...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Richard Kennaway) writes:
>>A safeword agreement, or any other sort of
>>negotiation, is a way of informing the parties what each other wants,
>>what rules they would like the other to abide by, and (perhaps tacitly)
>>what the likely consequences might be if the agreement is flouted. It
>>does not, however, pose any physical bar to such flouting.
>
>That's a common belief, all right. But if that's what you want. language
>is what you need, normal communication, not an unsafe word.
The use of safewords I described *is* language, normal communication.
An agreed change in the meaning of some words, in order to allow the
usual expressions of "no" to be used without meaning no. This in a
situation where, when one person really means no, and communicates it,
the other will stop. I imagine that in such a situation, you would say
that there is no more power exchange, real or fake, than there is with
vanilla sex, and hence that such a situation is not what this thread is
about; and I would probably agree, but see below.
>when genuine power exchange is occurring, the power we're talking
>about is an objective reality.
I see...or rather, I don't. I have come to the conclusion that I have no
idea what this entire skein of threads, and half the literature on BDSM
that I've read, are about. If this power is an objective reality, but is
not the physical power of restraints and brute strength, what is it? How
may it be observed? When can one say that power, exchanged or not, is
present in a particular situation, and on what grounds?
What is power?
___
\X/ Richard Kennaway, j...@sys.uea.ac.uk
Andrew Kelly
In article <1995Jan28.1...@tantalus.clark.net> jah...@tantalus.clark.net (Jahwar) writes:
: In article <akellyD3...@netcom.com>,
: Andrew Kelly <ake...@netcom.com> wrote:
: > Jahwar (jah...@tantalus.clark.net) wrote:
: > : No, but you were close. Force is the integral of the force times the
: > : displacement, and power is the product of the voltage and the current.
: >
: > : Jahwar, physics geek.
: >
: > Yo Jahwar....
: >
: > Force is the integral of the FORCE times the displacement?
: > eh?
:
: Eeek! Of course I should have said that work is the integral of the
: force times the displacement, mea culpa.
:
: > And power is the product of the voltage and the current as in
: > P = V/I? What happened to V=IR, which means by your formula
: > that P = R?
:
: No, P=V/I is not the product of the current and the voltage, P=VI is
: the product. And since V=IR (as you note) then my formula also gives
: P=I^2R.
:
: So I only did half an oops. :^)
:
And I did the other half. Senility, I suppose.
: Jahwar, rusty physics geek.
Andrew Kelly, rusty old geek
ake...@netcom.com
the one and only true vixen
(Jahwar) writes:
>> Depends on who you're doing it with and how much control you're giving
>> that person -- those are the conditions I was referring to.
>Yes, but I am afraid that I still don't see where it is the safewords
>that lead to the false sense of security. The risks you talk about
>(which I fully agree are there) seem to be to be there if safewords
>are used, and if safewords are not used, hence I would say that it
>isn't the safewords which are causing the false sense of security.
Am I missing something here? The difference is whether I have a sense of
security that I shouldn't, not whether the risks exist.
If I negotiate a scene with a psychopath, setting well-defined limits
that unbeknownst to me are bound to be ignored, those limits give me a
false sense of security.
If I agree to a scene with a psychopath, setting a safeword that
unbeknownst to me is bound to be ignored, that safeword gives me a false
sense of security.
If this psychopath did not agree to the limits or to the safeword, I
would not play because I would not feel secure with this person who
refuses what I believe to be safety measures. Hence the setting of a
safeword has caused my false sense of security.
>> A real sense of security comes from the relationship between the two
>> people, as such higher levels of security can only evolve through long,
>> close contact that includes repeated earnest exploration.
>This must be temptered with the unfortunately relatively common
>experiance that many married couples have their marriages end after
>years of work and trust together.
Security is never absolute or permanent. But whatever security I have can
be more or less grounded in reality.
>> That's why I
>> find that, for me, only this kind of relationship can provide the sense
>> of security and trust that are required to reach the emotional levels
>> that are where I like to be.
>I can understand that, however it seems to me to be a different issue
>than whether or not safewords are the cause of any existing false
>feelings of security. Do you have an idea of why we're not on the same
>wavelength here?
'Twas merely an aside, a plug for relationship-based SM, pay no
attention. :)
=vixen
--
vi...@panix.com @> "Without deviation from the norm,
an4...@anon.penet.fi <8 progress would not be possible."
/| =Frank Zappa
the one and only true vixen
(Jahwar) writes:
>the one and only true vixen <vi...@panix.com> wrote:
>> If I negotiate a scene with a psychopath, setting well-defined limits
>> that unbeknownst to me are bound to be ignored, those limits give me a
>> false sense of security.
>>
>> If I agree to a scene with a psychopath, setting a safeword that
>> unbeknownst to me is bound to be ignored, that safeword gives me a false
>> sense of security.
>I think the problem that I have is that over the years I have seen a
>good number of people argue that safewords should not be used because,
>among other things, safewords give people false senses of security.
>These people never make the point that negotiation, limits, or any
>other commonly accepted tool also suffer from the same problem.
>Thus, I belive that the use of safewords is unfairly maligned.
I think the maligning is fair. Negotiation, limits, and so forth perhaps
are unfairly ignored in the maligning department, at least as tools for
creating real security outside of a relationship.
>> Security is never absolute or permanent. But whatever security I have can
>> be more or less grounded in reality.
>What is reality in a bdsm relationship? The only way it seems to me to
>be able to prevent false senses of security is to assume all your play
>partners are psysotic maniacs, and behave in that fashion, which I
>can't beleive that anyone here can do.
Well, here's how I do it: I meet someone interesting, I get to know them,
I do some light play with them, I spend some vanilla time, I spend
some vulnerable time with them, I evaluate how they handle themselves ...
in short, we develop a relationship, we fall in love, we take it from
there. If we're lucky it keeps growing in trust, vulnerability, commitment
and responsibility through the rest of our lives. Or, he could turn out
to be a psychotic maniac with a lot of patience and well-developed social
skills luring me into a well-laid trap -- in which case, I'm well and
truly fucked.
If I'm going to anything really casual -- which I must make clear will not
include submission and certainly not true power exchange -- I'll do it at
a playparty or a club preferably with several large Dungeon Masters in
the near vicinity. I might do it with someone whose reputation is
well-established and widely respected, like maybe the Master of a good
friend ... ;)
But then again, I am of a mindset that anything less than commitment
makes for less-than-wonderful sex, so it's easy for me to say.
>When it gets right down to it, trust causes false senses of security,
>but trust seems utterly necessary for BDSM activities.
I beleive it is. What I most enjoy requires tremendous levels of trust,
levels that I am only comfortable with in the context of a committed
relationship. Even that is a risk, but I beleive I can reduce it to the
acceptable -- a safeword, negotiation, limits, etc. do little to help
that reduction of risk.
>> 'Twas merely an aside, a plug for relationship-based SM, pay no
>> attention. :)
>Well Vixen, with the amount of respect I have for you, almost anything
>you say I pay attention to.
I love you too, honeybuns ... :)
the one and only true vixen
In <3ginsr$7...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> amar...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Alex Martelli)
writes:
>vi...@panix.com (the one and only true vixen) writes:
> ...
>>What I am interpreting here is that since this feeling of no way out
>>comes from the weight of emotion between the partners (what Alex calls
>>emotional impossibility) that you must think that this emotion is the
>>source of the delusion. That Alex's sub who, when ordered to kill, finds
>>it impossible to pull the trigger, is deluded.
>a-hEm -- just butting in since my name is being bandied about:-) -- for
>the record, I have never ordered a sub of mine to kill. I *have* once
>been ordered to kill, found a very strong block against it (perhaps not
>insurmountable; haven't probed it enough to make sure), and, on
>checking up with my Lady (Laylah) found out that, in fact, it _was_
>acceptable to her that I just remove the intended victim from the
>possibility of further interactions with her -- a life need not be
>taken. Firearms were, in any case, not involved.
Pardon me, let me me rephrase: "Alex, when ordered to stomp, finds it
impossible ..."
>(The one I had been commanded to kill was a scorpion; I proceeded to
>remove it by gently taking it, while reassuring it that I meant no
>harm and asking it please to reciprocate the favour by not stinging
>me, and placing it out of the window).
Cosmic connection or just plain luck? :)
>>vows is a fairly unusual concept these days ... but is he deluded when he
>>says he can't leave? On some plane of physical reality of course he
>>*can*, it's physically possible, but in his world, he just *can't*, it's
>>emotionally impossible.
>I keep pointing out that there's a "middle ground" betwen outright
>physical impossibility and possibly delusional emotional impossibility,
>in the forlorn hope that black-and-white absolutists on this question
>will get to see the shades of gray in-between: _intellectual_
>impossibility. Some people find it impossible to integrate
>differential equations in their head, while with pen and paper they can;
>or they find it impossible to recite Homer by heart, while, given pen
>and paper and leisure, they *can* reconstruct all the verses needed.
>So, is the "impossibility" ``real'', or ``delusional'', here?
I may be stating all this in very black-and-white terms, but I do
acknowledge Alex's point. Anyway, it all leads up to the emotional weight
that we were talking about earlier -- it can be so strong as to create a
vast difference in feeling between simple choice ("I won't") and
choice altered by commitment ("Damn it, I just *can't"), what Janet
called "levels of having to".
The delusional thing is simply this: a person who cannot conceive that
their choice exists may be deluded, a person who cannot conceive of
themselves actually choosing a certain alternative (for emotional or
intellectual reasons) may be quite undeluded.
Jon Jacobs
>In article <3g5ot0$o...@crl.crl.com>, Jon Jacobs <jac...@crl.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The issue here is power: the taking of it, the giving up of it, and
>>the lack of both. It's a black-and-white question. If a submissive
>>retains the power to control what happens, no power has been
>>exchanged. If she does not, then power has been exchanged.
>
>If I understand you correctly (do I need to invite you to correct me
>if I'm wrong?) you use D&S to describe all the flavors of BDSM because
>the vast majority of BDSM contains aspects of dominance and
>submission, and that the few kinds of play that do not are uncommon.
Lessee, now. How can I handle this without giving the superparsers now
imaginary grist? Hmmm.
When you say "you," I assume that you mean _Different Loving_. yes? If
so, then the answer is a qualified no. Although what you say above might
be pretty close to true, the main reason that we chose to use d&s was to
avoid endless haggling and unintentionally misleading inplications over
the alphabet soup that is used in much of the subculture. Obviously, any
decision on this matter can lead to dissent, as has been amply
demonstrated in these threads. All in all, however, I believe it was and
is the right decision.
>In your experience and research, how common are female subs relative
>to the number of male subs?
Research tells me very little since there is none that I know of on this
question. Experience tells me just barely more. Here are a few data
that do seem to be so:
The largest population seems to be of male submissives.
Probably because of the above, the population in most demand seems to be
female dominants.
The rarest comodity seems to be male dominants.
Hope that helps.
Jon Jacobs
Bill Majors
inquiry thusly:
JJ>>In your experience and research, how common are female subs relative
>>to the number of male subs?
JJ>Research tells me very little since there is none that I know of on this
>question. Experience tells me just barely more. Here are a few data
>that do seem to be so:
JJ>The largest population seems to be of male submissives.
I would agree with this, however it is interesting that my own non
scientific reasearch seems to indicate that many of these "male
submissives" enjoy looking at photos, and/or stories dealing with
female submissives.
JJ>Probably because of the above, the population in most demand seems to be
>female dominants.
I'm not really sure of this. I think that it would appear this way, but
partialy because many males dispair of ever finding a submissive female
and therefore give up? I think an analysis of alt.personals.bondage
might yield some interesting info on this area, but that would be
rather inconclusive.
Any ideas from anyone on how to collect data on this question.
JJ>The rarest comodity seems to be male dominants.
Really? REALLY? (puffs chest out) I never considered myself to be
rare... hmmm....food for thought.
* 1st 2.00b #1358s * Gun control is a firm grip on a .44 magnum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: bill....@hedonism.com (Bill Majors)
Hedonism BBS / Long Beach, CA, USA / 310.631.7697
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Janet W. Hardy
: pretty much eliminates the kinky-swinging activities that many love so
: much. Fine. Eliminate them. Or, if you enjoy them too much, keep them
: up, but don't fool yourselves that unsafe words--or anything
: else--will keep you safe.
Quick straw poll here: How many people have ever felt totally,
completely safe during any S/M scene -- safeword or no, light or heavy,
D/S or sensation-only?
Verdant
sitting on both hands
Janet W. Hardy
: their choice exists may be deluded, a person who cannot conceive of
: themselves actually choosing a certain alternative (for emotional or
: intellectual reasons) may be quite undeluded.
<Applause!>
Verdant
leather
Bill Majors <bill....@hedonism.com> wrote:
Jon Jacobs replies to an inquiry thusly:
>
>JJ>>In your experience and research, how common are female subs relative
> >>to the number of male subs?
>
>JJ>Research tells me very little since there is none that I know of....
>
>JJ>The largest population seems to be of male submissives.
hmmm. The largest population seems to be males willing to submit, in
order to get any "play" or "action" at all. Given a chance, I bet (name
your wager <smile> ) that 90% of these "male submissives" would be Dom in
a dungeon heartbeat.
> ....... however it is interesting that my own non
>scientific reasearch seems to indicate that many of these "male
>submissives" enjoy looking at photos, and/or stories dealing with
>female submissives.
Same deal :)
>JJ>Probably because of the above, the population in most demand seems to be
> female dominants.
Perhaps another way of saying females in general... FemDommes
specifically because a lot of males feign submissiveness, knowing their
chances are greater for "action" than if they choose a dom role.
>I'm not really sure of this. I think that it would appear this way, but
>partialy because many males dispair of ever finding a submissive female
>and therefore give up?
Yep. Exactly my observation. I know a lot of males who "sub" because the
alternative is no play, period.
>Any ideas from anyone on how to collect data on this question.
Sure :) Field research comes to mind };>
>JJ>The rarest comodity seems to be male dominants
Hmmm. First it's "the population in most demand seems to be female
dominants" and then it's "the rarest commodity seems to be male
dominants"... not exactly contradictory, but not particularly in tune
with any notion of supply and demand, either.
Male dominants are pervasive. A *lot* of them are offering submissiveness
because dominance gets them nowhere. I have found men far more likely to
switch than women.
My humble opinion: the rarest commodity is the true dominant, or the true
submissive, as opposed to the person who will play a role to be able to play.
"Kinky swinging" accounts for a *lot* of our community's activities...
flameproof :)
Janet W. Hardy
Hmmm. My experience is almost 180 degrees away from yours. To wit:
: hmmm. The largest population seems to be males willing to submit, in
: order to get any "play" or "action" at all. Given a chance, I bet (name
: your wager <smile> ) that 90% of these "male submissives" would be Dom in
: a dungeon heartbeat.
Not in my experience. The majority of men I know in the scene are just
the opposite: they are willing to top, and do it quite well, but
infinitely prefer to bottom.
: >JJ>Probably because of the above, the population in most demand seems to be
: > female dominants.
: Perhaps another way of saying females in general... FemDommes
: specifically because a lot of males feign submissiveness, knowing their
: chances are greater for "action" than if they choose a dom role.
Jeez, I *wish* that were true. I am far from the only woman I know who
can easily find bottoms but has a tough time finding good tops. This
seems to be a particular problem for women "of a certain age" -- I
suspect our social proscriptions against torturing Mom may come into play
here...
: >JJ>The rarest comodity seems to be male dominants
: Hmmm. First it's "the population in most demand seems to be female
: dominants" and then it's "the rarest commodity seems to be male
: dominants"... not exactly contradictory, but not particularly in tune
: with any notion of supply and demand, either.
In my experience female dominants are both the rarest and in the most demand.
: Male dominants are pervasive. A *lot* of them are offering submissiveness
: because dominance gets them nowhere. I have found men far more likely to
: switch than women.
: My humble opinion: the rarest commodity is the true dominant, or the true
: submissive, as opposed to the person who will play a role to be able to play.
: "Kinky swinging" accounts for a *lot* of our community's activities...
God, let's not get back into *that* again. In my experience in the large
and diverse San Francisco het and bi S/M scene, bottoms of both genders
are far more common than tops, and men of both persuasions are far more
common than women. I've found that women may tend to be a bit more
interested in sensation play and men in power play, but that's pretty
general and I'm not sure how universal it is.
Verdant
Jon Jacobs
>>JJ>The rarest comodity seems to be male dominants
>
>Hmmm. First it's "the population in most demand seems to be female
>dominants" and then it's "the rarest commodity seems to be male
>dominants"... not exactly contradictory, but not particularly in tune
>with any notion of supply and demand, either.
I like that, since, while it imagines a partial contradiction, it also
nicely points one of the many serious limitations of trying to see the
world through the supply-and-demand ideology.
The reason that the above is true is that there are more people
announcing themselves as male submissives than the female variety. Thus,
while there are fewer male dominants than female ones, they are also in
less demand. See?
>My humble opinion: the rarest commodity is the true dominant, or the true
>submissive, as opposed to the person who will play a role to be able to play.
>"Kinky swinging" accounts for a *lot* of our community's activities...
Oh, I agree completely. Obviously (I would think), that's inherent in
everything I say.
Jon Jacobs
Bill Majors
LR>My humble opinion: the rarest commodity is the true dominant, or the true
>submissive, as opposed to the person who will play a role to be able to play
>"Kinky swinging" accounts for a *lot* of our community's activities...
I would agree with this totally. However, earlier on Leather stated:
LR>hmmm. The largest population seems to be males willing to submit, in
>order to get any "play" or "action" at all. Given a chance, I bet (name
>your wager <smile> ) that 90% of these "male submissives" would be Dom in
>a dungeon heartbeat.
If this is true then that 90% are not "dominants" since they just
wouldn't be able to be submissive to get "play or action" but would
rather do without (as indeed I did do many times in my youth) rather
than submit.
The fact is that there are many, many submissive women in the world to
match up with dominants, it is just that many men are not willing to
accept the fact that women need more than ropes, whips and a cock. They
need love, relationship, talk, romance, etc.
My papers carry many (well not hundreds but at least several) ads from
submissive women who have realized that they desire a dominant man.
Most of these women are smart enough to be fairly specific in what they
are seeking....the letters that they get (all mail must be forwrded
open) indicate that the men don't read, don't care, or won't pay any
attention to what the ladies want. This then is part of the problem for
many men. I can't begin to tell you how often women send letters back
to me (we will drop them if they don't answer) with a comment that,
"Look at what they sent me, I just can't answer this." And usually i
would totally agree...
LR>>I'm not really sure of this. I think that it would appear this way, but
>>partialy because many males dispair of ever finding a submissive female
>>and therefore give up?
LR>Yep. Exactly my observation. I know a lot of males who "sub" because the
>alternative is no play, period.
Well this was not what I had in mind. I meant that they give up, ergo
they are NOT dominants?
* 1st 2.00b #1358s * A day without sunlight is like night
Jahwar
> Quick straw poll here: How many people have ever felt totally,
> completely safe during any S/M scene -- safeword or no, light or heavy,
> D/S or sensation-only?
I have, quite regularly, for approaching a year. The rapport that
exists between myself and my usual partner is absolutely wonderful.
Jahwar
ssch...@infinet.com
>
> Quick straw poll here: How many people have ever felt totally,
> completely safe during any S/M scene -- safeword or no, light or heavy,
> D/S or sensation-only?
Verdant:
I hate to muddle the semantics further, but...
safe? You mean safe that my Master won't break my leg or suffocate me to
the point of death in a scene?
100%. Period. I know my Master would never cause tha kind of damage.
Safe, as in not getting hurt, or not getting hurt MORE thn I'd LIKE to accept?
Certianly not 100%. Mastercat is always pushing limits, and pushing me to
the edge or slightly farther.
But safe in terms of not getting killed or left in bondage to die alone?
Absolutely 100%. And not only with my own Master, but I feel equally safe
with those other Dom(mes) he has had me play with.
Perrrfect
--
Go ahead, take the moral high ground. All that divine backlighting makes an excellent target.
leather
> Leather (me) wrote:
>LR>hmmm. The largest population seems to be males willing to submit, in
> >order to get any "play" or "action" at all. Given a chance, I bet (name
> >your wager <smile> ) that 90% of these "male submissives" would be Dom in
> >a dungeon heartbeat.
>
>If this is true then that 90% are not "dominants" since they just
>wouldn't be able to be submissive to get "play or action" but would
>rather do without (as indeed I did do many times in my youth) rather
>than submit.
I wasn't calling them dominants. I was saying they were submitting in
order to play, but might choose or prefer to be "dominants" if that were an
available avenue. It followed up a quote about male "subs" having an
interest in materials that showed female submission.
<snip>
>Well this was not what I had in mind. I meant that they give up, ergo
>they are NOT dominants?
Bill, I suspect we agree on this issue, we just have to find a way to
agree to agree :)
Part of the problem is the vague definitions our scene labels have. On
the one hand, simply performing the duties of a dom makes one a dominant:
on the other hand, not amount of toys or experience will make a person a
dom who is *not* a dominant. Etc. So we have, what, 20,000 people in asb,
maybe 200 posters, and each with their own personal, private and prefered
lexicon, trying to sort out the wheat and chaff of bdsm :)
What I read from your above statement is: if a person *is* dominant, they
would neither allow themselves to submit simply to be involved in some
sort of play, nor would they give up trying to match with a submissive.
Is this anywhere near the mark? If so, I'm not sure I agree totally, or
disagree heartily :)
Leather
leather
>completely safe during any S/M scene -- safeword or no, light or heavy,
>D/S or sensation-only?
<raising hand>...
now, the disclaimers and such :)
We could ask "how many people have ever felt totally, completely safe,
ever?" right after a discussion of natural disasters, earthquakes and
death in general. Kinda sorta maybe like asking the scene specific
question after a long and contentious thread about scene safety,
safewords, etc :)
My experience is 99% on the dominant side. This does not negate the
question. There have been times when I have not "felt totally, completely
safe" while domming a scene - scenes that were, almost always, stopped.
The issue wasn't *my* direct safety. The safety of the submissive is the
primary concern of the dominant (my belief, ymmv). There have also been
scenes where I felt total safety in the play at hand.
I have never submitted. However, since I make scene gear, I have at times
directed submissives to "switch roles" for my enlightenment. In each of
these times, I have felt completely safe.
You said "in any d/s scene"... :)
Leather (Toymaker)
debbie ann
>> Quick straw poll here: How many people have ever felt totally,
>> completely safe during any S/M scene -- safeword or no, light or heavy,
>> D/S or sensation-only?
>
many times. even most times. In fact, I could more easily count the very
few times I haven't felt safe. I have felt completely safe in heavy, no
safeword scenes.
Nyani-Iisha Martin
: : The problem here is that, if someone accepts the realities above, that
Although I see and agree with the point you are trying to make, Janet, I
must say that I *have* felt that safe. Probably foolhardily, (then,
again, maybe not-----*smiles and waves at a certain person with +20
charisma*) but I have.
And, to add fuel to the fire, *grin* that time I was thinking of I loved
*because* I felt safe. I have been more afraid of my parents than anyone
I have ever met in the Scene, (even the ones that _did_ scare me) let alone
played with.
Ny
topazzz
> Janet W. Hardy <ver...@crl.com> wrote:
>>Quick straw poll here: How many people have ever felt totally,
>>completely safe during any S/M scene -- safeword or no, light or heavy,
>>D/S or sensation-only?
><raising hand>...
>now, the disclaimers and such :)
>We could ask "how many people have ever felt totally, completely safe,
>ever?" right after a discussion of natural disasters, earthquakes and
>death in general. Kinda sorta maybe like asking the scene specific
>question after a long and contentious thread about scene safety,
>safewords, etc :)
There are many different kinds of safety beginning with the obvious physical
safety. But there is also emotional safety, spiritual safety and to my mind
a kind of safety that precludes harm to one's sense of one's self.
In my entire life, I had never experienced safety anywhere or with anyone
until I discovered it in Marchesa's bonds and in her loving, firm control.
It was the first time I didn't fear that someone wanted to harm me in some
way, either physically or mentally. It was the first time I believed it was
SAFE to trust.
So, my answer to the question of whether I ever felt safe in an SM or D/s
scene would have to be, It is where I feel safest!!!
Now, perhaps this sounds strange, but in my life what was supposed to be
safe, and those who I was SUPPOSED to be able to trust caused the most harm.
I always thought Mentor's company name "Tight Hug Toys" was such a wonderful
and fitting name, because for me bondage is hugs and biting is...well...
INTENSE kisses ** *sigh* but, as always, YMMV.
topazzz
Beloved, obedient, devoted, adoring, owned slave of
Marchesa Megan Sensei & Lord Alessandro, "Auntie" to Ny
*Looking forward to basking in the safety & love of my Lord's "hugs" &
"kisses"*
Bill Majors
quotation machinery in gear since she has misquoted me, but I am not up
in arms since she raises some interesting points.
ÿ
RT>: I would agree with this, however it is interesting that my own non
>: submissives" enjoy looking at photos, and/or stories dealing with
>: female submissives.
RT>Sorry Bill but this hasn't a damn thing to do with if the guy is
>submissive or not, I can't think of too many men submissive or not that
>doesnt get enjoyment out of seeing scanty clad women in photos etc,
>regardless of the "theme" of the photos. Ditto reading "hot" stories of
>female also regardless of "theme"
The point of this was that while men may be submissive, they do not
tend to want to look at images of domination by women, but would rather
look at images of women in bondage. What this means is up in the air.
It was simply an observation.
However, on reflection it seems that many men might find their
fantasies going toward dominating woman in their fantasy life while
not being willing and/or able to do all that is required of a dominant.
Our sales figures also indicate that photos and/or drawings of
dominatrix's do not sell as well as those of submissive females...so if
males truly were submissive one would expect that their masturbatory
material would reflect this. (of course I am assuming that they use
photos for masturbation)
As for stories, now here we have an even more interesting dichotomy. In
the areas of stories it is very difficult to get statistics. On the one
hand I thought that a survey of what is being posted might work, but
then I realized that it is tilted by those who decide to write and
post. i.e. if one author loves dominatin and writes a hundred stories
and another one likes TV domination but only gets to write one story.
We still have only two folks with different points of view and it is
not 100 to 1 rather still 1 to 1.
So perhaps it is best to just accept the idea that until we find a
decent survey method with high reliablity we just won't know.
RT>: JJ>Probably because of the above, the population in most demand seems to b
>: >female dominants.
RT>Now here I will differ with you, mostly based on your wording of the
>above sentence. WHile Female Dominants might as you put it be in most
>demand, it does not say where they fall into the percentage of overall
>people. YOu give the impression that they are second in most common,
>which is not true as I see it.
>Like I said before of all the people i talk to 90% are male, of the 10%
>that are female, the majority identify themselves are submissive.
Thsi was one of the misquotes....it was JJ who said that. However, I do
believe that domianants in general (male or female) are in the minority
with most folks wanting someone to control them, take over, make
decissions, etc. And all of them want a different degree of submission
too...just makes life real complicated.
RT>: I'm not really sure of this. I think that it would appear this way, but
>: partialy because many males dispair of ever finding a submissive female
>: and therefore give up? I think an analysis of alt.personals.bondage
>: might yield some interesting info on this area, but that would be
>: rather inconclusive.
>: Any ideas from anyone on how to collect data on this question.
RT>Bill here I am not quite sure what your getting at, are you saying some
>male submissives are male dominants that have given up at finding a
>female submissive? Can you clarify please.
Nope, the original post (some of it left out here) said that some males
are submissive jsut to get into a scene any kind of scene. What I was
saying was that if a person gives up being able to find a submissive
female and becomes submissive themselves in order to get "involved"
that perhaps they never were really dominant in the first place.
However, there just isn't any data at all, even from my readers of our
papers and magazines on this topic. Frankly it is a rather new one to
me.
RT>: JJ>The rarest comodity seems to be male dominants.
RT>I totally disagree with you on this point, rarest in my experence is
>female dominants, and i am not taking into account the many "PRO"
>dominants as it has been my finding that expect in a small amount of
>cases most of these woman are not "into" BDSM persay.
>Faux dominants if you will....:)
Ohhhh I can see the flames from "pro" dominatrix's now. Many that I
know absolutely do enjoy it...they live for it and love it. BTW another
case of the quote being JJ's and not mine although I am in total
agreement with it. You cannot eliminate "pro" dominatrix's since they
are a part of the subset...interestingly enough there don't seem to be
any "pro" male dominants. (gosh perhaps I should start a business?)
OOPS forgot been there, done that....another story for another day.
RT>Below is the break down as I have seen in my dealings with various
>people, note that this is representive of people that are "out" so to
>speak, not on a statistic of actual numbers in general populace.
>Also I am taking onto account that alot of people identify themselves as
>switches, most usually also idenitfy their strongest leanings.
RT> 100% total
>
> 80% male Of that 80% aprox 60% self identified submissive
> 40% self identified dominant
> 20% female Of the 20% aprox 60% self identify as sumissive
> 40% self identify as dominant.
Well in this case I notice that you talk about the large number of
people that identify themselves as switches...seems we allways return
to that concept...well first I think that (based on our mailing lists,
readership, and my BBS system) that your figure of 20% female is a bit
high. But even accepting it you would have us believe that the ratio is
almost even and I think that is just not true even slightly. 40-60
while not even is very close to it...
In this one case I think that I can draw on 40 years of experience and
15 out of the closet as a publisher and videogrpaher and state that
submissives far outnumber dominants. (gosh I couldn't have 5 if that
were not true) Of course the whole point of this is what is power?
I really don't know...all I know is that life is a mystery and a
wonderful ride and I thank those who are able to love me for what I am,
who I am, and I find each and every one of them unique and wonderous.
* 1st 2.00b #1358s * Even my computers do my will.
Laurelie
Verdant asked:
> Quick straw poll here: How many people have ever felt totally,
> completely safe during any S/M scene -- safeword or no, light or heavy,
> D/S or sensation-only?
Have I *felt* totally completely safe? Yes.
Did I *think* I was? Not always. I know that things can go
wrong, that my dom is not a mind reader, that my consent is
not a constant, that there are factors that cannot be controlled for.
Still, the human creature is amazingly good at calculating risks,
making a judgement about those risks, and then *feeling* as
if those risks were no longer there. A form of calculated hopefulness
that translates itself into faith.
Do I know I was safe? Nope. That knowlege is probably only
in the mind of Rage and God.
I'm sure all of us can point to times when we felt perfectly
safe when we weren't. I remember once when Rage got his new
crop for christmas and he was unwrapping it with glee. I
figured he was going to hit me with it eventually. I was with my
beloved master and I felt utterly totally safe. Then, not realizing
I was chewing on part of my lunch, he hit me with it, causing
me to inhale suddenly and begin to choke. I was unable to send
out distress signals because I couldn't breathe. I had never,
ever been choking before to the point where I couldn't cough
or even sputter. Luckily, Rage hit me again, causing me to dislodge
what I was chewing. It wasn't until quite a few moments that
Rage even realized what was going on.
It sent home very strong messages to me. Doms are human,
life is frail, faith is not always enough.
Sincerely,
Laurel
who notes that this kind of carelessness is exceedingly rare in
Rage. He is the most careful dom I have ever encountered. My faith
in him is based on the fact that he errs so infrequently. And
that is why I submit to him. The knowlege that he is human, and
sometimes makes mistakes, however, is why we both agree to safewords
(which, admittedly, would not have helped me much in this situation, and
which is also why we do not rely on safewords *alone*).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to ad...@anon.penet.fi.
Bill Majors
NM>Bill Majors (bill....@hedonism.com) wrote:
NM>: Frankly, I don't see this as a big deal...if someone wants to switch
>: back and forth and it suits them, well then it is fine for them, but I
>: don't see them as being "dominant" in that circumstance, rather I see
>: them as just wanting experiences and therefor possibly unable to be a
>: truly good dominant.
NM>Um. Did you just say that a switch is possibly unable to be a good
>dominant _because_ they are a switch, that being a switch is not
>condusive to being a good dominant?
NM>Ny, just asking for a clarification at this point
Now now Ny, taking me out of context? No I did not say that. The
original thread was a question about men who switched just because they
could not find a submissive and wanted "action" as it were. My feeling
was and is that if they switch out of desperation to find an experience
then they are not able to be a good dominant because they are unable to
find the dominant experience, they are willing to settle, they are in
short desperate...that is NOT condusive to being a good dominant. Do
you see it otherwise?
* 1st 2.00b #1358s * Sex, Drugs, and Crime...God, I love Congress.
rabbit
: : again, maybe not-----*smiles and waves at a certain person with +20
: : charisma*) but I have.
: : And, to add fuel to the fire, *grin* that time I was thinking of I loved
: : *because* I felt safe. I have been more afraid of my parents than anyone
: : I have ever met in the Scene, (even the ones that _did_ scare me) let alone
: : played with.
: ::sigh:: Almost everyone who responded to this question seems to be
: missing my point: which is that "safety" is a relative thing, inside and
: outside S/M. I am not safe as I sit here in my own office typing on my
: own computer. If I go upstairs and allow my partner -- whom I trust
: implicitly -- to make me helpless, that risk is compounded by additional
: risks, such as his sudden illness or incapacity, or the small possibility
: of something we do in the scene triggering an unanticipated reaction on
: my part.
Not to be argumentive but I think you have missed their points, yes
safety is a realitive thing but if we're to always dwelled on the what ifs,
we'd be all sitting is some fortified place scared out of our wits 24
hours a day. I feel 100% safe sitting here right now, early am, sig. other
at w ork and dog barking like crazy at some unseen thing in the dark.
Considering the rise in drive by shoots in Dallas these days some would
say I shouldn't feel safe at all. There lies the difference, our own
conceptions of safe.
The same goes for when I am sceneing, I am not usually bound, just
because I don't really need to be, even in a heavy flogging scene(big
pain slut) but when I do scenes with bondage involved i do not feel any
less safe that I would any other time. Yes something could happen to my
Dom, yes the house could catch fire ( fire = huge fear for me, having
survived one barely) any number of things could happen, none of this
lessons my feeling of safety. Its a fact of life; shit happens. You can't
let it dictate your feelings or they way you go about living your life.
At least I can't, its not in me to what if.
: Total trust in your top (or in your bottom -- I have been *far* more
: scared during scenes when I topped than I've ever felt during scenes
: where I bottomed) does not obviate the realities of risk. That's what I
: meant when I asked about safety.
: Verdant
Your quite right, it doesn't obviate the realities, but its totally up to
you whether these are going to dictate your reactions and feelings. But I
can safely say that these circumstances with someone other than my sig.
other would not get the same feeling of total safety that I get with him.
Trust plays a big part in it.
rabbit in chain
--
rab...@metronet.com * i tried to drown my sorrows
The Leather Rose Society * but the little shits
POB 223971 * learned to swim
Dallas Tx 75222 * 1-214-289-0619 or 1-214-375-1994
Jahwar
> Safety is safety -- imperviousness to harm.
And tautologies are tautologies.
At what point do you consider a potential harm to be of too low risk
to worry about?
Jahwar
Jahwar
> To me, at least, this is not a rational process. I worry about things
> that realistically have a very low chance of happening, and I don't worry
> about things that are actually far more likely to happen.
It is well know that people don't approach risk analysis in rational
manners.
I try too though, even though I'm an admitted adreniline junkie. I
SCUBA dive, sky dive, ski, and drive on the DC beltway to work. And I
engage in BDSM activities that include cutting and piercings. The most
important thing I to do keep myself "safe" is to be very careful about
whom I play with. And in spite of all those dangerous things I do, I
do feel, and think that I am, safe with my usual play partner.
> Verdant
> who wonders how often she will have to sign
> her posts "Verdant" before people quit calling
> her "Janet" around here
If you are on a Unix type box, I would sugguest using the "chfn"
command to change the name that gets put in the headers of your posts.
Jahwar
Lori Selke
>
>Quick straw poll here: How many people have ever felt totally,
>completely safe during any S/M scene -- safeword or no, light or heavy,
>D/S or sensation-only?
Speaking about bottoming, here.
Depends on when in the scene.
Going into one, ever, no. I'm way too paranoid for that :)
But in the midst of one? Yes, a couple times.
Did I have a safeword? Yes
Is that what made me feel safe? No.
(They weren;t intended as D/S scenes, and I dunno whether they count as
heavy or light.)
Was it the safeword that made me feel safe? No. The safeword
made me feel confident *enough* to move into the scene in the
first place, to move past my paranoia.
What made me feel safe was my connection with the person I was scening
with. (And I could have been mistaken in my judgement of the person,
I know. I still may have been, and was just lucky those times.)
*But*, establishing a safeword *was* important in that it gave me
that confidence, the little boost to say "OK, I'm doing this.
But if something goes wrong, not something like "wait I have a
leg cramp" or "Ow that's too hard lighten up", but something
*really* goes wrong and I want stuff to stop *right away*,
I have a way to signal that. And if that signal is *ignored*, then
I have a clear signal for *myself* that I did communicate clearly,
according to a prearranged avenue, and I was ignored anyway.
And that I gotta get out of this mess right away and by any means
necessary if so."
And, well, most of my scening is in the context of an ongoing
relationship. (I can count on the fingers of one hand
the number of scenes I've done with someone oether than my partner.)
I like that sense of safety. I also like to futz with it;
Feeling safe is not always one of my goals, or requirements,
in order to scene. (feeling safe *enough* usually is a requirement
to enteer the scene, as I've already said; that can go away, but
hopefully only when I've pre-dicussed it in some way thank you.)
Speaking as a top is harder to articulate, sorry.
Lori
Eightmeg
: nfma...@husc7.harvard.edu (Nyani-Iisha Martin) writes:
: >: Quick straw poll here: How many people have ever felt totally,
: >: completely safe during any S/M scene -- safeword or no, light or heavy,
: >: D/S or sensation-only?
I don't believe that it is safe for everyone to make up a safe
word and then expect the top to remember it 100% of the time.
Isn't it better to simply call the top over to you and inform
them that you are being pushed too fast? If it is done
quietly I don't think it is embarrassing to the top.
Paul King
> Bill Majors (bill....@hedonism.com) wrote:
> : In Message-ID: <3gljdu$h...@crl6.crl.com> Jon Jacobs replies to an
> : inquiry thusly:
>
> : I'm not really sure of this. I think that it would appear this way, but
> : partialy because many males dispair of ever finding a submissive female
> : and therefore give up?
>
> Bill here I am not quite sure what your getting at, are you saying some
> male submissives are male dominants that have given up at finding a
> female submissive? Can you clarify please.
Oh no. Oh my. I thought that it would be a nippy day in hell before
I said this, but, to some degree I agree with JJ. If I'm looking for
someone to play with at whatever level, and I find a female who makes
me feel submissive before I find someone I'd like play with in some
other configuration (m/f/top/bott/sub/dom/vanilla) I'll slip into a
submissive mindset (and male seems unlikely to change).
> Also I am taking onto account that alot of people identify themselves as
> switches, most usually also idenitfy their strongest leanings.
Some of us do identify as switches purely. I know it's an old
arguement, but I'm not a dominant who subs sometimes or a submissive
who sometimes tops or even a sub who sometimes bottoms. I'm a
switch. Nymph and I go through phases sometimes where one of us is on
top consistantly, but that doesn't change the fact that we both
identify as switch.
-Paul
Free Hugs
Xiphias Gladius
>I don't believe that it is safe for everyone to make up a safe
>word and then expect the top to remember it 100% of the time.
Probably not. But how hard is it to remember, "Safeword"?
Besides, what are you suggesting here?
BOTTOM: No, no nonnono! Don't do that! Oh, please, sir, not that!
TOP: Haha! You are at my mercy! You must face the terror of my
RotoRooter(tm)
BOTTOM: No, Sir! Please, not the RotoRooter(tm)!!
[SCREAMING]
TOP: Now that you have faced my RotoRooter, you must del with the
horrors of my Salad Shooter(tm) [NOTE: This is just fiction.
Obviously no *True* pervert would own a Salad Shooter (tm)]
BOTTOM: Artichoke.
TOP: [Thinks, "Wow. Sie said 'artichoke'. I wonder why sie said
that?"]
I've used exclusively "traffic lights" (Red Yellow Green) and
"safeword" for two years. It's not likely I'll forget them. Heck --
"Red", "Safeword", and "Hold" are hardwired in -- "Red" and "Safeword"
make me cease any action I'm taking, and "Hold" stops me dead in my
tracks.
>Isn't it better to simply call the top over to you and inform
>them that you are being pushed too fast?
My playparters can say, "That's to hard -- lighter please," or
"yellow".
"Yellow" is easier to get out, especially in, umm . . . compromising
circumstances.
Just purely hypothetically, let say that, oh, I was with Kero, say,
maybe this past Thursday morning. Let's say that she was sorta
exhauseted from having eight consecutive orgasms and I was working on
her ninth. Let's say that she was gasping and could barely get her
breath, and I started biting her nipple.
Purely hypothetically, of course.
Let's say it was too hard.
So, Kero gasps out "yellow" and I lighten up.
I don't think she was capable of more than two sylables. If things
were worse, she might not be capable of more than *one* sylable. If
she wasn't able to say more than one sylable, she could say "red" and
that would be that.
Could she have said, "Too hard"? No, her brain wasn't functioning on
that high a level -- she didn't know "hard" and "soft", only intensity
levels.
>If it is done
>quietly I don't think it is embarrassing to the top.
My embarassment is in no way a consideration, when I'm topping. Trust
me -- I'd much rather be embarrassed than hurt someone
unintentionally.
The people I bottom to feel the same way.
'Sides, what's embarrasing about that?
- Ian