related kinks
SilverOz
I've suffered a lot from the problem of having one kink that is often
seen as part of a package with others. So that if you have it, you
are assumed to also want the others.
In my case, I'm into bondage and sexual submission, but I'm not into
pain or service. But if you say "submissive" then the overwhelming
assumption seems to be you can get your kicks by giving service, and
that you like to be flogged.
And of course there are those who like to be flogged and have a hell
of a time explaining that they don't like the submissive/service
stuff.
Why is service seen as part of submission?
Another weirdo is the flogging thing. It seems that impact play,
flogging and spanking, is so much the default it's like fish and
water. Why?
SilverOz
Masterwoof
SilverOz <Silv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been pondering kinks that are traditionally "related".
>
> I've suffered a lot from the problem of having one kink that is often
> seen as part of a package with others. So that if you have it, you
> are assumed to also want the others.
>
> In my case, I'm into bondage and sexual submission, but I'm not into
> pain or service. But if you say "submissive" then the overwhelming
> assumption seems to be you can get your kicks by giving service, and
> that you like to be flogged.
>
> And of course there are those who like to be flogged and have a hell
> of a time explaining that they don't like the submissive/service
> stuff.
>
> Why is service seen as part of submission?
Is it an Old School thing? Lots of younger guys are getting into bondage and SM
but without the service part. Perhaps to the disgruntlement of Old School guys,
they're doing what they want. :-)
> Another weirdo is the flogging thing. It seems that impact play,
> flogging and spanking, is so much the default it's like fish and
> water. Why?
Yeah, I've seen that a lot, too. I like a spanking once in a while (with
intensities of ginger and excursions into wasabe once in a while, but no
jalapeno for me!) but I just don't get into flogging.
> SilverOz
Here's one: furries and hockey ... a weird combination that shows up a lot in
the SF Bay Area.
--
MasterWoof <masterwoof at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com/masterwoof/
Violet Tigress
Masterwoof <maste...@timNOberSPANwoof.com> wrote:
> Here's one: furries and hockey ... a weird combination that shows up a lot in
> the SF Bay Area.
**********
Furry hockey? Strange ust imagine trying to snuggle up to all that ice
encrusted fur. Eek!
Cindy
> In article <slrne1oukh....@localhost.localdomain>,
> SilverOz <Silv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I've been pondering kinks that are traditionally "related".
>>
>>I've suffered a lot from the problem of having one kink that is often
>>seen as part of a package with others. So that if you have it, you
>>are assumed to also want the others.
>>
>>In my case, I'm into bondage and sexual submission, but I'm not into
>>pain or service. But if you say "submissive" then the overwhelming
>>assumption seems to be you can get your kicks by giving service, and
>>that you like to be flogged.
>>
>>And of course there are those who like to be flogged and have a hell
>>of a time explaining that they don't like the submissive/service
>>stuff.
>>
>>Why is service seen as part of submission?
>
> Is it an Old School thing? Lots of younger guys are getting into bondage and SM
> but without the service part. Perhaps to the disgruntlement of Old School guys,
> they're doing what they want. :-)
I don't think it's that; I've encountered enough Old Guard Doms who
just want a sexual submissive. But it might be related to the disdain
some people have for "sexual submission" as if anything less than 24x7
is not the real thing.
IAC, I've been in & out of this for over 30 years, and it's always been
only sexual, and I've never had trouble connecting with those who wanted
the same.
>
>>Another weirdo is the flogging thing. It seems that impact play,
>>flogging and spanking, is so much the default it's like fish and
>>water. Why?
Because it's easy, it's commonly desired, and it is a quick path to a
certain response.
I'm one of those into it, in fact very into it. Certainly spanking is
more common because it is so widely accepted that it's hardly suspected
of being "abusive" nor really kinky these days, whereas flogging and
whipping and various other pain games are still viewed with narrowed eyes.
>
>
> Yeah, I've seen that a lot, too. I like a spanking once in a while (with
> intensities of ginger and excursions into wasabe once in a while, but no
> jalapeno for me!) but I just don't get into flogging.
>
>>SilverOz
What I find is that certain ways of being whipped or spanked bring me
quickly to sub-space and really kick off the endorphins, and satisfy an
urge to demonstrate submission to the Top while satisfying his urge to
see it. But then, I am into a bit more severe pain than some, and I
like to be pushed very hard; that is not true of everyone, I am sure.
>
> Here's one: furries and hockey ... a weird combination that shows up a lot in
> the SF Bay Area.
>
Heh ... and here I thought the prevalence of "computer people" on this
group was a bit ... odd.
Actually the concurrence that astonishes me a bit is the apparent
coincidence (possibly correlative but I really don't know) of those who
consider themselves asexual but are into submission.
In most ways, I'm very typically subbie, but I quite definitely am not
into service as part of the agreement ... even though I don't mind doing
some of those things, I just mind doing them as an expectation of my
submission, esp. in concert with working in a demanding job. When I was
younger, I think I tried to do that whole "superwoman" thing because I
had the energy -- not tied into being submissive, just my way of
thinking I could do it all -- but as aging comes, some of that energy
goes, and I realize I just don't want that kind of expectation on me.
Also these days, I think I expect men (and I'm a strictly hetero- type
of sub, so any Dom I deal with is male) to be able and interested in
doing more to "take care of" themselves in those ways, not dump it on a
woman as if this were the 50's. I might do service as a punishment once
in a while, but I just would walk away fast from any relationship that
wanted it as a regular requirement on me.
IAC, as I said, I haven't had any problem over the years finding those
who want just a sexual sub; that has seemed to be the majority until
recent years, actually, and I would disagree with the initial
implication in that I find more younger men want it than the older ones.
Laziness of youth, perhaps?
SilverOz
Cindy <cu.c...@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
> Actually the concurrence that astonishes me a bit is the apparent
> coincidence (possibly correlative but I really don't know) of those who
> consider themselves asexual but are into submission.
For me, it is because submission (especially with bondage) is the only
thing that gets me particularly aroused.
So I'm mostly asexual in that even with the bondage I don't get very
aroused and I turn off quite quickly and easily, but without it I am
not really interested at all.
So I guess I'm kinked for that, and not for other sexuality. I can
get jollies from it without deliberate focusing on sexual things,
without genital stimulation for example.
SilverOz
Masterwoof
Violet Tigress <kis...@inreach.com> wrote:
heh.
No, but I know a lot of guys who are into hockey and into fursuiting.
Cindy
I have seen your posts on this before, but I still have a hard time
seeing you as "asexual"; you apparently don't enjoy intercourse or
direct genital stimulation, but to me that does not equate to asexual
although I hate to debate your own label for yourself.
It's just ... you clearly do have sexual enjoyment, just not through
intercourse apparently.
I get turned on by submission and bondage, and can certainly find sexual
enjoyment without intercourse, so I can relate to that completely. But
I guess I don't consider those things asexual if they arouse me, and I
can have an orgasm without even the thought of intercourse (although I
will say that I also do enjoy intercourse, quite a bit, but it is rare
for me to enjoy or choose other forms of genital stimulation).
For example, I -- like many subs -- get aroused giving oral sex. As
there is no real physical sexual stimulation for me in it, does that
make it an asexual act? It's more of a turn on if bondage/restraint is
involved in some way, and enormously affecting to me if it is done as a
wholly submissive act. Still I consider it a very sexual thing, for
both parties.
You disagree?
SilverOz
Cindy <cu.c...@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
>
> It's just ... you clearly do have sexual enjoyment, just not through
> intercourse apparently.
Well.. most sexual things. I do get turned on yes, and I understand
many asexual people do.
But it's of short duration and well... Reading a good book is about
as much fun.
The asexual label is a good one for me, because really if you are only
talking a minute or two before everything shuts down and you are no
longer interested, then the difference between that and not ever
interested is pretty damn low when there's another person involved.
> I get turned on by submission and bondage, and can certainly find sexual
> enjoyment without intercourse, so I can relate to that completely. But
> I guess I don't consider those things asexual if they arouse me, and I
> can have an orgasm without even the thought of intercourse (although I
> will say that I also do enjoy intercourse, quite a bit, but it is rare
> for me to enjoy or choose other forms of genital stimulation).
The O word just happened :) Sorry, don't do that. Don't even get
close. No matter what the deal is. I get a bit closer during
menstruation, but without that big hormone hike, I get very little.
And with it, I just get a bit more.
> there is no real physical sexual stimulation for me in it, does that
> make it an asexual act? It's more of a turn on if bondage/restraint is
> involved in some way, and enormously affecting to me if it is done as a
> wholly submissive act. Still I consider it a very sexual thing, for
> both parties.
>
> You disagree?
I have no way to know. I can't disagree with what works for you, I
find some things sexual yes, but not very. BEcause nothing is very
sexual for me. I rather like the things that are, but as the sexual
arousal bit is so short for me it's not been that good. I get
uninterested just as the other person is getting interested and so
it's just work for me.
SilverOz
slow...@snafu.de
> I've been pondering kinks that are traditionally "related".
> I've suffered a lot from the problem of having one kink that is often
> seen as part of a package with others. So that if you have it, you
> are assumed to also want the others.
That's because of all the "beginner's packages" in the sex shop and on
those home shoppping channels. They all come with a bit of rope, some
clamps, a collar, and a flogger. No wonder that people get confused and
think they had to use them _all_, like the ingredients of any other
oven-ready package.
Me, I'm still waiting for a top in heavy diapers spanking some nicely
bound slaves on a party. But some combinations just aren't manufactured.
slowtiger
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com)
> I've been pondering kinks that are traditionally "related".
>
> I've suffered a lot from the problem of having one kink that is often
> seen as part of a package with others. So that if you have it, you
> are assumed to also want the others.
>
> In my case, I'm into bondage and sexual submission, but I'm not into
> pain or service. But if you say "submissive" then the overwhelming
> assumption seems to be you can get your kicks by giving service, and
> that you like to be flogged.
That might be because that's what the word implies to many people?
People use terms differently. By the definition I am using, you actually
aren't submissive, but rather a bottom.
My strategy is to explain how I use the words when talking to somebody
new, just so they know what I mean.
> And of course there are those who like to be flogged and have a hell
> of a time explaining that they don't like the submissive/service
> stuff.
>
> Why is service seen as part of submission?
>
> Another weirdo is the flogging thing. It seems that impact play,
> flogging and spanking, is so much the default it's like fish and
> water. Why?
I suspect it's "Masochism light". A very large part of the human
population enjoys sensations.
Another possible explanation may be that much of WIITWD is an acquired
taste, and a spanking is familiar enough (and a flogging pleasant
enough) to be easily acquired. Many people can come to like a flogging,
just as many *learned* to like kissing and making out in high school. So
it can become a self-propagating cultural tradition. Even I started
liking to flog when I recently discovered it purely by chance.
--
Offering chains and freedom for nice ladies in Southern California.
http://www.geocities.com/prison_lover/index.html
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security
Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice.
They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have
no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the
current President.
SilverOz
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com) <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> Another possible explanation may be that much of WIITWD is an acquired
> taste, and a spanking is familiar enough (and a flogging pleasant
> enough) to be easily acquired. Many people can come to like a flogging,
Heh. Another tick in the SilverOz is weird column.
I hate impact play. It makes me angry, rips me right out of subspace,
and turns me either utterly still and "if I play dead they will go
away" or else vicious. Or one then the other.
I can endure it if I'm not bound, but not for long and I have to force
myself to do it although not in any subspace or getting anything but
serious unpleasantness from it.
There are times I get very tired of being at the extreme ends of the
bell curve...
SilverOz
Brian Gaff's Imap account
news:slrne1oukh....@localhost.localdomain...
Hmm, well, I myself have moods when one or the other or both or neither or
top or bottom are how I feel. Sadly ,I cannot access such things at the
moment, but your question is interesting, as I'm not what you would call
submissive in the service way, and not dominant in the power crazed way.
I cannot explain it and I think this and what you prefer just go to show
the tremendous spectrum there is in playing, whether it be purely sex games
or whatever.
I'm sure we have had this discussion before here, and I don't think we ever
quit sorted out why those not interested tended to bundle all things that
they felt were perverted together as one.
In my view, the only reason some folk are vanilla, is because they have a
narrow view of normal. Like normal is everything consensual which does not
cause permanent harm.
Brian
--
Brian's private email account.
Cindy
> SilverOz wrote:
>
>>I've been pondering kinks that are traditionally "related".
>>
>>I've suffered a lot from the problem of having one kink that is often
>>seen as part of a package with others. So that if you have it, you
>>are assumed to also want the others.
>>
>>In my case, I'm into bondage and sexual submission, but I'm not into
>>pain or service. But if you say "submissive" then the overwhelming
>>assumption seems to be you can get your kicks by giving service, and
>>that you like to be flogged.
>
>
> That might be because that's what the word implies to many people?
> People use terms differently. By the definition I am using, you actually
> aren't submissive, but rather a bottom.
>
> My strategy is to explain how I use the words when talking to somebody
Interesting. I would have called SilverOz a submissive who wasn't
necessarily a bottom. I tend to think of a bottom as someone who likes
to be spanked & such but doesn't necessarily like submission; bottoms
can usually call a halt to play based on their own defined ideas and
what they want out of the scene. Subs tend to let the Top or Dom set
and control. SilverOz seems clearly submissive to me -- turned on or
enjoying the yielding of control and pleasing someone else -- but not
the usual bottom activities of physical stimulation from spanking and/or
sex.
So you & I have exactly opposite views of this, I think.
I do know there are a fair number of submissive people (by which I mean
one who likes to give over control/power and serve the pleasure of
others in some way) who don't like spanking and/or who consider
themselves asexual although, as I mentioned, I question if it is that or
not liking conventional intercourse or direct genital stimulation.
But by far there seem to be many more people who like basic stimulation
of spanking, and like to have their wrists bound as a sort of "bondage
light", if you will ... and that seems to include some huge portion of
people whom we might otherwise consider vanilla.
M. Shirley Chong
> I've suffered a lot from the problem of having one kink that is often
> seen as part of a package with others. So that if you have it, you
> are assumed to also want the others.
Part of that may be because it seems that many people do have a sort
of generalized package of preferences. Sort of the way that many
people who have dominant right hands also have dominant right feet.
It's fairly unusual to run across people who have a dominant right
hand but a dominant left foot (assuming a population that is
equipped with the standard number of each).
As a competitive obedience instructor, I've run across a very few
people whose hand and foot dominance don't match. It shows up in
competitive obedience because the heelwork for the dominant venues
in this country needs to be very precise, somewhat like a very
formal sort of dancing.
So part of it may be the human wiring thing.
Part of it may also be because many people are first exposed to kink
via various types of art, erotica or entertainment. Their particular
kink is triggered. And then other kinks become more attractive just
by association with the kink they already enjoy. So maybe someone
with a kink for black leather clad femdoms with a whip started out
with a kink for being whipped by a woman. But because such
portrayals often include black leather, the sight of the black
leather starts to trigger the being whipped kink and eventually the
two things are both kinks.
> In my case, I'm into bondage and sexual submission, but I'm not into
> pain or service. But if you say "submissive" then the overwhelming
> assumption seems to be you can get your kicks by giving service, and
> that you like to be flogged.
Another hypothesis could be that those who are kinked to enjoy
applying bondage and triggering sexual submission are also often
kinked to enjoy service and flogging as well. So those who want the
bondage and sexual submission end up providing service and being
flogged as part of the negotiations inherent in most relationships.
Also known as the "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours"
principle. I don't know if this is true, mind you, but it's a theory.
Personally, I'm not one of those people who are into applying
bondage for the sake of the bondage. It's the means to an end to me,
not an end in and of itself. But being presented with someone
securely bound just makes me want to, well, to DO things to them. A
whole range of things, which could include flogging.
As for service kinks, the past year has taught me that if anything,
I am definitely kinked to receive rather than to give. But it has to
be by someone specific to me in order for me to really enjoy it
(random hospital staff definitely don't count).
> And of course there are those who like to be flogged and have a hell
> of a time explaining that they don't like the submissive/service
> stuff.
>
> Why is service seen as part of submission?
Maybe because so many submissives really seem to enjoy rendering
service? I'm not saying it's 100% because I suspect it's far from
it, but a sizable number do enjoy giving service as part of their
expression of submission.
Functionally, I think saying something like "I'm submissive in X, Y
and Z ways but service doesn't do anything for me" should be enough
explanation.
I'm reminded of one of Philip the Foole's relatively recent scene
reports, where he talked about a scene with a dom who liked to play
with one spot on the body until the sub can hardly stand it. But
Philip doesn't enjoy that sort of play and the lack of enjoyment
takes the form of a cold rage that spells the end of scenes. They
had fun anyway. <G> Why do some subs like to get the "one tortured
spot" treatment and others don't? Fundamentally unanswerable, I think.
> Another weirdo is the flogging thing. It seems that impact play,
> flogging and spanking, is so much the default it's like fish and
> water. Why?
I can only venture a guess about this one. It seems to me just from
reading SSBB that there are a lot more people who like impact or
thud than like sting. It's like a restaurant offering chocolate,
vanilla or strawberry ice cream as the dessert choices--that's what
covers the greatest number of tastes. Leaves us green tea or ginger
ice cream lovers out but I know I'm in a definite minority for
preferring those flavours.
Well, okay, if I could find a really, really good BITTERSWEET
chocolate ice cream that wasn't too sweet, maybe I'd like chocolate
ice cream more. I prefer it when my chocolate bites me back.
In other words, I suspect that one component is just human wiring.
There's something about those sensations that many people find
pleasurable. I kind of get that since I find percussive massage
pleasurable if the masseuse follows my directions and reactions
well. But it has to be my way or not at all whereas it seems to me
that there are people out there who can enjoy a much wider range of
percussive sensations than I do.
Another (much smaller) component might be that stingy stuff is often
more likely to draw blood and there are a significant number of
people who are squeamish about blood. Either inherently squeamish or
have become so due to greater awareness of bloodborne diseases.
I think I just wasted a bunch of words saying "heck if I know."
Shirley
M. Shirley Chong
> In my view, the only reason some folk are vanilla, is because they have a
> narrow view of normal. Like normal is everything consensual which does not
> cause permanent harm.
EEEEEUUUWWWW!!! That reminds me of an Isaac Asimov short story I
read long ago, about a world where robots take over. With the
initial consent of the populace because the robots are willing and
even eager to do all the stuff most humans don't really enjoy doing.
But then people start discovering that the robots' programming to
not harm and to prevent harm to human beings leads to unintended
consequences. The example I remember specifically in the story is a
guy who enjoys woodworking, goes down to his work space and
discovers that all his dangerous tools are gone. They've been
replaced by dull substitutes completely unfit for working with wood.
And the wood itself has been replaced by some sort of plastic
suitably soft enough to not possibly cause any harm to a human.
When I was in the hospital, before I'd quite figured out the, uh,
knowledge differential between different personnel, I let one of the
residents convince me that keeping cats in the house was of
particular danger to me and I should re-home my four cats for the
sake of my health. This sort of thing is much more convincing when
you're hearing it while you're just about dead.
I came very close to actually re-homing my cats. Actually found a
home for the older pair of sisters but when it came time to
authorize the transfer, just couldn't do it. I realized that a life
without my animals wasn't the sort of life I want to lead.
As I type this, my beloved "lump" (Holly the cat) is curled up
against my side under my fleece robe to keep both of us warm. I'm so
very glad I didn't opt for what was supposed to be best for me.
As it turns out, there's no good evidence on either side of the
question. There are, however, cultural biases and the resident who
advised (urged) me to get rid of my cats admitted later that where
he comes from, people don't have animals in the house, it's just not
done. It seems unsanitary, unhygeinic and just downright yucky to him.
I bet their vacuum cleaners work better and last longer than mine
but since I'm a terrible housekeeper, it doesn't really matter to
me. The antics of the Frightful Foursome are much more important to me.
Please, please, may the ghods grant me my wish to live in an unsafe
world.
Shirley
Vorticity Kappa
> Why is service seen as part of submission?
Let's try a reductio...
"i want to submit to you. That makes me hot."
"OK.. you understand that means that you'll be doing what I want you to
do, not necessarily what you want to do."
"yes sir"
"All right then. You'll start by raking the leaves in the front yard"
"oh no... I'm not going to let you use your control of me to make your
life easier!"
"AIEEEEEEEEE! So what you really want is for me to play an assigned role
in your masturbatory fantasy, and call it Dominance. See ya around."
--
VK
SilverOz
Vorticity Kappa <vortici...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> SilverOz wrote:
>
>> Why is service seen as part of submission?
>
> Let's try a reductio...
>
> "i want to submit to you. That makes me hot."
>
> "OK.. you understand that means that you'll be doing what I want you to
> do, not necessarily what you want to do."
>
> "yes sir"
>
> "All right then. You'll start by raking the leaves in the front yard"
>
"No, I'm a sexual submissive in certain scenarios, mostly to do with
bondage and captivity."
"If that's not your kink, then we aren't well matched. Goodbye."
best not to assume that a) your kink is all there is and b) that
someone else's kink being different means they want to use you.
I expect that someone who has the matching kink to me will get their
jollies from fulfilling their matching kink, just as *you* are
expecting your partner to get their jollies from fulfilling the kink
that matches yours.
What I don't know is why everyone expects one matching kink to have
the others attached.
SilverOz
Don SideB
For 5 years I was Mistress Marsha's gardener at her beach house. Aside
from giving me a reasonable cover for being at her place regularly, I
found making her getaway place beautiful (the yard was in a state of
total neglect when I started) to be very satisfying in its own right.
Don
DonSideB
Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.
Vorticity Kappa
It's not the different kink that makes me feel used... it's the non-use
of the opportunity to say "yes sir -- as long as it's from this list,
here". In my universe, consent to moderately onerous taskings is
included in the unadorned "yes sir".
The purpose of the moderately onerous task is to smoke out this level of
semantic disconnect, sooner rather than later.
Nothing in the above should be construed to say I _can't_ do a
reasonable "Arr arr me proud beauty, at last Oi has ye in moi power!".
When I choose to. Funny stuff, control.
--
VK
M. Shirley Chong
> Let's try a reductio...
>
> "i want to submit to you. That makes me hot."
>
> "OK.. you understand that means that you'll be doing what I want you to
> do, not necessarily what you want to do."
>
> "yes sir"
>
> "All right then. You'll start by raking the leaves in the front yard"
>
> "oh no... I'm not going to let you use your control of me to make your
> life easier!"
>
> "AIEEEEEEEEE! So what you really want is for me to play an assigned role
> in your masturbatory fantasy, and call it Dominance. See ya around."
<LOL> I know of a few people who have tried out relationships with
submissives who swore that their kink was service and that nothing
could please that sub more than to do household chores, etc. I won't
say this is confined to men with sissy maid kinks but in the
situations I know about, it was all with such men.
So the day rolls around when the submissive is going to try out
their fantasy. And in each case, the dominant discovered that
actually *doing* the chores wasn't the kink. It was more like being
told to do the chores and refusing to do them in order to get
punished or expecting to be ogled and admired while starting some
chore, then abandoning the chore for hot sex.
I'm not saying that all submissives kinked for service act this way
but there are certainly at least a few.
In each case, there had been a lengthy "getting to know you" phase
and the submissives had sworn that they loved to vacuum, mop, clean
bathrooms, etc. That doing assigned chores was their main kink.
Oddly enough, when fantasy hit real life equipment and cleaning
fluids, it turned out that their kink wasn't about the chores at
all. The chores were the backdrop.
I think it's a variant of the "dominant as a life support system for
the whip or flogger" scenario.
Shirley
SilverOz
M. Shirley Chong <eit...@netins.net> wrote:
>
> In each case, there had been a lengthy "getting to know you" phase
> and the submissives had sworn that they loved to vacuum, mop, clean
> bathrooms, etc. That doing assigned chores was their main kink.
> Oddly enough, when fantasy hit real life equipment and cleaning
> fluids, it turned out that their kink wasn't about the chores at
> all. The chores were the backdrop.
I think the service kink is very rare indeed, especially at the level
many doms want it.
I like pleasing my partner, but being human I need to get enough
pleasure from it - internal or external - to make it worthwhile for
me.
TO be "kinked for" something means, I believe, to get more internal
pleasure out of an action than someone who isn't so kinked. I think
there are few things that don't have direct sensory stimulation that
give internal pleasure compared to things that do. I include in that
direct sensory bit the obvious pleasure of the partner.
So I can get pleasure out of a partner's pleasure, but they have to
show it. Doing the chores is not going to give me much pleasure per
se unless I am very strongly kinked for it, and I would only get
submissive pleasure out of it if there was a lot of submissive
context.
I think for most people, being told "do it" and at the end getting
"good" or "bad" isn't going to be enough submissive context to get the
pleasure they need and want. I suspect most people expect on some
level that the dom will provide enough submissive context for the
service asked of them to work.
Pure service being such a very very rare kink, although one wanted a
lot by doms apparently.
I have certainly had the mismatch experience which manifested as both
people not thinking the other had provided enough, had "earned" what
was wanted. I didn't think the dom had provided enough submissive
context, enough for me to find pleasure in what they wanted. He
wanted me to provide more of my own satisfaction in what he wanted me
to do. He felt that I wanted more work out of him than he was being
repaid for by what I was doing. So both had a feeling that the other
was getting more, and wasn't giving enough.
But it's important that neither was being selfish, neither was a user.
It was because we neither of us got enough internal pleasure from
doing the things the other wanted. We both got some, but not enough
to sustain us. So we needed the other to provide the external
pleasure, the context, to make it a good experience. Which to the
other was "more work for less pay".
Took me ages to realise this was what was going on. That it wasn't
the I was inaequate or that he was. But that both of us were
expecting the other to generate internal pleasure enough from the BDSM
actions, because we both knew we could. That when the actions were
the right ones that fed our kinks, a little went a long way. If they
weren't then we needed that extra external context, those actions from
the other. Which, as they weren't actions the other got enough
internal pleasure from were work and not play.
I am absolutely unsurprised that many people think they are signing up
for what turns them on, not what turns someone else on. That they go
into a BDSM relationship expecting BDSM, not expecting to have to
provide all their own pleasure. And that not having a very rare kink,
they are surprised to find that they are expected to have it because
they see a scenario that leads into their kinks and the prospective
partner sees something different.
SilverOz
Nena and Al
>M. Shirley Chong <eit...@netins.net> wrote:
>>
>> In each case, there had been a lengthy "getting to know you" phase
>> and the submissives had sworn that they loved to vacuum, mop, clean
>> bathrooms, etc. That doing assigned chores was their main kink.
>> Oddly enough, when fantasy hit real life equipment and cleaning
>> fluids, it turned out that their kink wasn't about the chores at
>> all. The chores were the backdrop.
>
>I think the service kink is very rare indeed, especially at the level
>many doms want it.
I'm fortunate to have found someone who is kinked for service at that
level. My Al's in the kitchen doing dishes right now. He does all of
the housework except cooking and cleaning the cat box. He's been doing
all this for years, and shows all indications that he'll keep right on
doing it. I don't have to remind or nag, and these days he does most
of it before I even notice that it's needed. He's actually starting
to get kind of picky and possessive about it. It bothers him when
things are messy. I think he vacuums 3 times a week (dark carpet,
long haired cat), but I don't know for sure because he does most of
his cleaning on his days off so I don't even have to see it being done
- I come home to a nice, clean house.
He's made 45 minute trips to town to get me something silly like ice
cream. That still amazes me. He loves to make me happy and will do
anything I tell him to do and doesn't expect anything in return.
Al doesn't think it's all that rare. I think he's wrong. When I was
dating the fellows I came across who wanted to do housework wanted me
to be very involved in the process. Dress them up and order them
around, chase them around with a whip, that kind of thing. They
didn't really want to do chores, they wanted to role-play them.
That's a fine kink, but it's not my kink.
In addition to being an actual service oriented sub, my Al is a pain
pig and stunt pervert. And he's handsome, smart, cheerful, competent,
cuddly and charming, not necessarily in that order. I think I'm just
about the luckiest woman in the world.
Nena
Cindy
...
> In addition to being an actual service oriented sub, my Al is a pain
> pig and stunt pervert. And he's handsome, smart, cheerful, competent,
> cuddly and charming, not necessarily in that order. I think I'm just
> about the luckiest woman in the world.
>
> Nena
>
> http://www.madamegiggles.com/
Sheesh, I'm a sub and _I_ think you are just about the luckiest woman in
the world.
Could almost tempt me to Top!
SilverOz
Nena and Al <m...@madamegiggles.com> wrote:
> Al doesn't think it's all that rare. I think he's wrong. When I was
> dating the fellows I came across who wanted to do housework wanted me
> to be very involved in the process. Dress them up and order them
Well.. is he doing it because it trips his submissive buttons, or is
he doing it because he wants a happy house, he likes making things
nice for you, and it's a job that needs doing?
After all, I know more than one dom who does the cooking and helps
with the cleaning because they can do it, they like cooking (if not
cleaning), it needs doing, and it makes for a happy household.
COuld it be that if those ones who saw it as scene material were getting
their submissive itch scratched in other ways and were in a fulfilling
relationship where they realised the job needed doing and it was their
choice to take on the job, not an unpleasant chore, they'd change?
IN other words, is this like with like?
SilverOz
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com)
More likely, opposite views of what SilverOz actually wants. I could
well be mistaken on that... Your definition sounds very close to my own
definition.
My POV was mostly based on her statement that she is not into "pain or
*service*" OTOH, your side is also valid (she did mention sexual
submission).
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com)
> In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:26:52 -0600
> M. Shirley Chong <eit...@netins.net> wrote:
>> In each case, there had been a lengthy "getting to know you" phase
>> and the submissives had sworn that they loved to vacuum, mop, clean
>> bathrooms, etc. That doing assigned chores was their main kink.
>> Oddly enough, when fantasy hit real life equipment and cleaning
>> fluids, it turned out that their kink wasn't about the chores at
>> all. The chores were the backdrop.
>
> I think the service kink is very rare indeed, especially at the level
> many doms want it.
>
> I like pleasing my partner, but being human I need to get enough
> pleasure from it - internal or external - to make it worthwhile for
> me.
Not all that rare, I suspect. I actually ended up with not one but two
submissives fighting to clean my house and cook. They do that even
though neither is *my* submissive (and one of them has another Master).
At times, I've been chased out of my own kitchen...
Poor me :-))
(neither is *my* submissive, but both are good friends, and really do it
because they are service oriented. It's not even my kink, but who am I
to argue with having a neat home and two happy women around!)
SilverOz
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com) <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> My POV was mostly based on her statement that she is not into "pain or
> *service*" OTOH, your side is also valid (she did mention sexual
> submission).
Now there is the problem :)
To me, service is the "mow the lawn, cook my dinner" things. The sort
of stuff you hire a servant for.
My submission isn't about doing stuff like that, it is both about
being submissive in a scene, and about deferring to the dom out of
scene. As in he has the final word.
But you, and most others, see the servant as one and the same as the
submissive.
SilverOz
Vorticity Kappa
When I say "rake the leaves" after hearing "yessir", it's because I
didn't *get* the yessir. In principle I admire one who could simply
accept the proffered cardboard replica and make of it what he could. Me,
I just gots to challenge it if it doesn't ring true.
"I don't think that word means what you think it means"
--
VK
M. Shirley Chong
> I'm fortunate to have found someone who is kinked for service at that
> level.
So am I. I think the moment I really realized it was last year in
the hospital when I was still very weak. I'd eat as much of a meal
as I could (in addition to the NG tube <shudder>) but the action of
moving food from plate to mouth would exhaust me quickly. I started
getting down a lot more of each meal when my husband started rooming
in with me because he would feed me when I got too tired to do it
myself. Which was good because it got more food into me but I hated
putting him to the trouble. He assured me he liked doing it.
What convinced me was when I was stronger and he sighed wistfully
one day and said he missed the days when I needed him to feed me.
For the last year, he's had to do it all--all the housework, all the
animal care and nurse me. On top of dealing with congestive heart
failure (just diagnosed in November).
> Al doesn't think it's all that rare. I think he's wrong. When I was
> dating the fellows I came across who wanted to do housework wanted me
> to be very involved in the process. Dress them up and order them
> around, chase them around with a whip, that kind of thing. They
> didn't really want to do chores, they wanted to role-play them.
> That's a fine kink, but it's not my kink.
In at least one (and I suspect more) of the cases I know of where a
submissive swore they wanted to do service, wanted to do chores,
there was quite a long period of communication first and the dom
spelled out exactly what it was that she was looking for. The
submissive agreed, swore that giving that sort of service was
exactly what they wanted to do, etc.
When it came time for a trial visit, it turned out to be as
above--chores as a background for what the submissive really wanted.
I don't think the submissives were deliberately trying to fool the
dominants. I think it was most likely a great deal of inexperience,
a long time spent fantasizing and a certain reluctance on the part
of the submissive to be upfront about their own lack of experience.
Shirley
Golden California Girls
> I've been pondering kinks that are traditionally "related".
>
> I've suffered a lot from the problem of having one kink that is often
> seen as part of a package with others. So that if you have it, you
> are assumed to also want the others.
>
> In my case, I'm into bondage and sexual submission, but I'm not into
> pain or service. But if you say "submissive" then the overwhelming
> assumption seems to be you can get your kicks by giving service, and
> that you like to be flogged.
>
> And of course there are those who like to be flogged and have a hell
> of a time explaining that they don't like the submissive/service
> stuff.
>
> Why is service seen as part of submission?
>
> Another weirdo is the flogging thing. It seems that impact play,
> flogging and spanking, is so much the default it's like fish and
> water. Why?
>
> SilverOz
You got me thinking about WIITWD. I think we tend to fall into (at least) six
major categories of BDSM. (Sorry if I use labels like Madison avenue yuppie and
dink and take them over the top.) They are fuzzy, overlap a bit, and because
they are simplified not correct in many cases. They may not even be correct at
all, but they are a starting point.
I think we first need to classify on these categories and then on the
activities. Otherwise we'll have bad mismatches even if the activities match.
The first category is the Pro. Cash is usually a motivating factor. I'm not
really sure that is a kink. I'm also not sure that a Pro in their home life
even has to engage in BDSM. Some may be willing to do it for free, but because
so many are willing to pay they may not stay in the free mode for any length of
time. I expect if they do BDSM at home it is in another category.
The second category is the John. I'm thinking that John's may well include many
SAM's. This is a person who has a jerk off fantasy and this is the only way for
them to get off. This is some cases might be called a fetish. This person has
their brain wired so that some specific thing or things provide strong sex
stimulation. Orgasm is usually a requirement. Topping from the bottom the
norm.
The third category is the Player. While they don't top from the bottom while in
scene, they might only set up scenes where they are very likely to get their own
specific sexual (including fetish) needs met, or have a darn good time trying.
That doesn't mean orgasm is required. Players may include former John's who
have learned their bodies will respond to a lot more than just one or two narrow
jerk off fantasies. In the non-kinked these would be the party animals always
willing to try something. These are the tops and bottoms of the world.
The fourth category is the Stepford servant. Here the submissive lives their
life through the dominate. Love, honor and obey and they mean it. It's 24/7 or
don't bother to call me back. The potential for being abused is high in these
people. (Personally I a little far from this type so I have a hard time
wrapping my head around it.) These are submissives.
The fifth category is the Owner. This is the person who owns a Stepford
servant. The need for 24/7 pampering is well built into this person. They know
what they want and how it is to be done. They are not going to put up with a
John. They almost could be called pet owners. The potential to abuse is exists
is these people. These are the dominates.
The sixth category is a My Way. This person could seem like an owner, but they
have a specific fetish that needs to be met. They will go to most any length to
get it met. Be it something simple like school girl uniforms, or more complex
like public flashing. In things outside of their specific fetish they may not
be a dominate.
Now this group has had many discussions about the meaning of "total" in terms
like TPE. I think we are much more fractured than we think. We maybe better
described as a group who wants someone to do things to us that could have bad
consequences if not done carefully. Bad leaving a lot of territory from
abrasions to death. Basically we are risk takers.
Once we have classified the person, next comes the kink or activities. I'm not
going to list all the different things from A to Z.
Now as to Silver's question about kinks in packages, a lot of us have been
exposed to the same pornography. What we see tends to shape us. As so much of
it is mass marketed is it a surprise that the same things come up in common in
many people? Not everyone will pick up all the same things in groups. Many
will. Our culture is shaped by what we read. If you only find books saying
that spanking and boot licking go together, are you surprised to find a person
who likes spanking but hates boot licking?
Nena and Al
>Well.. is he doing it because it trips his submissive buttons, or is
>he doing it because he wants a happy house, he likes making things
>nice for you, and it's a job that needs doing?
Both. He's a bit of a femsupremacist. He feels that men were put on
the planet to make women happy and that doing housework, among other
things, allows him to fulfill his purpose. That certainly works for
me. Housework itself doesn't trip his submissive buttons, but it's
part of a package that as a whole really does trip his buttons.
>COuld it be that if those ones who saw it as scene material were getting
>their submissive itch scratched in other ways and were in a fulfilling
>relationship where they realised the job needed doing and it was their
>choice to take on the job, not an unpleasant chore, they'd change?
I don't think so, but it's possible. On the few occasions I asked how
this would work in the context of a live-in relationship, the fellows
felt that keeping the house should be my responsibility but assured me
that they would help me with it.
I don't blame them for this, in fact, I understand completely. To
them, housework is an unpleasant chore they'd prefer to avoid, same as
it is to me. It can be made pleasant for them with the right context
and accouterments, but that scenario does nothing for me.
Nena
SilverOz
> them, housework is an unpleasant chore they'd prefer to avoid, same as
> it is to me. It can be made pleasant for them with the right context
> and accouterments, but that scenario does nothing for me.
Definitely :)
And because the emphasis is on the scene, not the work, it won't get
done well.
Which is the problem with "get a slave to do the housework", the
submissive context for most people has to be solid enough that the
system fails.
I expect "force them to do housework" is as rare a dom kink as "enjoy
housework" is a sub kink :)
SilverOz
Jason Crowell
I don't necessarily enjoy housework, although, at some level, I do like
making people happy. Of course, I also like wearing the maid's uniform
as much as any pervy boy, but there's a time and place for
everything...
However, I definitely enjoy the NOT getting caned part of doing
housework
Nena and Al
>And because the emphasis is on the scene, not the work, it won't get
>done well.
>
>Which is the problem with "get a slave to do the housework", the
>submissive context for most people has to be solid enough that the
>system fails.
Dunno if I'm parsing this correctly - are you saying that because
housework doesn't trip triggers for most submissives, a dom can't
assume that having a sub = maid service? That's certainly true, but
for me, the two things do have to go together at the live-in, LTR
level. I don't assume that they'll go for this, in fact I assume that
they won't. It surely cuts down on my potential partner pool, but
that's what criteria are for - to narrow the pool to those with the
highest likelihood for success. I wouldn't expect a casual partner to
do chores, although if they offered I'd take them up on it as long as
they didn't expect more from me than general instructions and
gratitude.
>I expect "force them to do housework" is as rare a dom kink as "enjoy
>housework" is a sub kink :)
I expect you're right.
Nena
SilverOz
> housework doesn't trip triggers for most submissives, a dom can't
> assume that having a sub = maid service? That's certainly true, but
I think so. It might happen, but assuming it is likely to fail.
HOwever, it is often used as a put down when people talk about their
fantasies, or seems to be taken almost as a given.
"submissive" = "servant" appears to be generally considered true.
SilverOz
Anson
> EEEEEUUUWWWW!!! That reminds me of an Isaac Asimov short story I
> read long ago, about a world where robots take over. With the
> initial consent of the populace because the robots are willing and
> even eager to do all the stuff most humans don't really enjoy doing.
The story is "With Folded Hands" by Jack Williamson, he later turned it
into an inferior novel.
--
Living in New Zealand since 1964.
New Zealand BDSM Resources: http://whisper.co.nz
"Subspace", "Owned" and "Bound", books on D/S by Toya
http://whisper.co.nz/subspace
Sir Gardener
news:dvjov8$b2k$1...@news.netins.net...
> EEEEEUUUWWWW!!! That reminds me of an Isaac Asimov short story I
> read long ago, about a world where robots take over. With the
> initial consent of the populace because the robots are willing and
> even eager to do all the stuff most humans don't really enjoy doing.
>
> But then people start discovering that the robots' programming to
> not harm and to prevent harm to human beings leads to unintended
> consequences. The example I remember specifically in the story is a
> guy who enjoys woodworking, goes down to his work space and
> discovers that all his dangerous tools are gone. They've been
> replaced by dull substitutes completely unfit for working with wood.
> And the wood itself has been replaced by some sort of plastic
> suitably soft enough to not possibly cause any harm to a human.
That was part of "I, Robot" and was made into a Will Smith movie in 2004.
--
Sir Gardener
Loving Master and Husband of gentle^spirit[SG]
Webmaster, http://www.christiansandbdsm.com
--
"People know when they're being used and when they're being cherished."
Fred Rogers (1929-2003)
Markem
<sir_ga...@christiansandbdsm.com> wrote:
>That was part of "I, Robot" and was made into a Will Smith movie in 2004.
Sorry that movie has no resemblance to the book. Isaac was probably
rolling around in his coffin. (this is opinion)
Markem
(sixoneeight) = 618