thought for the day - top attitude
SilverOz
Admiral Lord Lewin:
He was never angry", says Rear-Admiral Richard Hill, his biographer
and sometime subordinate. " He never raised his voice. His technique
was to make you feel that you never wanted to let him down."
Seems to me that is a far better "top attitude" than "not taking shit".
Lord Lewin didn't take shit either I note, but that's not how the people
who worked for him remembered him.
An admiral can command his naval subordinates. If he tries that trick
outside the navy, he'll find that not only doesn't it work, it's counter
productive. Whereas being a good person, being someone people don't
want to let down... That works in or out of the Navy.
SilverOz
--
========================================================================
Australian BDSM Information Site http://www.zed.com.au/~master/abis/
========================================================================
LadiKath
>From the obituary in The Times (www.the-times.co.uk) for
>Admiral Lord Lewin:
>
> He was never angry", says Rear-Admiral Richard Hill, his biographer
> and sometime subordinate. " He never raised his voice. His technique
> was to make you feel that you never wanted to let him down."
>
>Seems to me that is a far better "top attitude" than "not taking shit".
Sounds a lot like my Dom, who mainly dominates by making me love him so much.
When I am slipping in pursuit of my goals, he talks to me. And I do feel like
I don't want to disappoint him. It is very motivating, much more so than, "do
this or I will whip your ass, " which for me would actually be more of a
reward.
I try to use this approach as a substitute teacher, but it's hard to get to
know the kids
well enough to use this method in the short time I have time I have them.
Katharine
Robert Dante
>
> From the obituary in The Times (www.the-times.co.uk) for
> Admiral Lord Lewin:
>
> He was never angry", says Rear-Admiral Richard Hill, his biographer
> and sometime subordinate. " He never raised his voice. His technique
> was to make you feel that you never wanted to let him down."
>
> Seems to me that is a far better "top attitude" than "not taking shit".
>
> who worked for him remembered him.
>
> An admiral can command his naval subordinates. If he tries that trick
> outside the navy, he'll find that not only doesn't it work, it's counter
> productive. Whereas being a good person, being someone people don't
> want to let down... That works in or out of the Navy.
>
> SilverOz
I am sure his friends did feel that way about him. I am also fairly
certain his enemies did not.
best regards,
ROBERT DANTE
Robert Dante
> i am in the "fortunate" position to have had three tops. That may not
> seem like many to some, as i've seen posts from people who seem to go
> through them like water somehow... i don't know how people do that,
> but it is a fact we're all different! Those three i've been with:
>
> 1. Here are the rules.
> 2. I can use fear if I have to, I don't care if you're afraid of me.
> 3. I don't want you here if you don't want to be here, you can leave
> whenever you choose. I don't believe in punishment, I believe in
> negotiation and communication.
>
> i find the third option far more effective. Being killed with
> kindness is an excellent way to go. <g>
More than once I've seen the lightbulb go off over a Dom/me's head when
they realize that the punishment they usually use, like spanking, is not
going to change the behaviour of a masochist who truly wishes to be
punished.
"Only" three Tops is not the point -- what counts is the quality, the
growth, the satisfaction. And out of curiosity, with which one did you
spend the most time?
regards,
Robert Dante
Robert Dante
copy of "The Leatherman's Handbook" is right next to my copy of "PET:
Parent Effectiveness Training." Lot of truth, there.
Amusedly yours,
Robert Dante
LadiKath wrote:
>
> >
> >From the obituary in The Times (www.the-times.co.uk) for
> >Admiral Lord Lewin:
> >
> > He was never angry", says Rear-Admiral Richard Hill, his biographer
> > and sometime subordinate. " He never raised his voice. His technique
> > was to make you feel that you never wanted to let him down."
> >
> >Seems to me that is a far better "top attitude" than "not taking shit".
>
louise
>More than once I've seen the lightbulb go off over a Dom/me's head when
>they realize that the punishment they usually use, like spanking, is not
>going to change the behaviour of a masochist who truly wishes to be
>punished.
As a person who is physically masochistic, and by that i mean that
certain types of pain are literally physically pleasurable to me
regardless of mental interpretations, i find it astonishing that any
Dom/me that you know who had been exposed to the scene would be so
naive as to expect bare hand spanking, for example, to be a punishment
for someone like me.
It is common knowledge, i believe, that you have been around the scene
for quite some time and have seen a lot. Don't you find it pretty
peculiar that a Dom/me (as opposed to a wanna-be Dom/me) could have so
little insight?? If the Dom/me had ever been to a play party, or read
anything on SM, or been trained, or had even been to a few munches,
one would think he or she'd be aware of the existence of people wired
like me.
Maybe i misinterpreted your point, because a Dom/me that knows all of
this might not realize that an particular individual is a masochist,
until inflicting pain and observing the results. Perhaps that is the
lightbulb going off over his or her head. Still, i wouldn't think it
would be too mind-boggling.
By the way, for those readers who find what i am saying to be
astonishing, do not fear. There are other punishments. Withdrawal of
attention can be an awful punishment and quite effective on someone
like me.
Disclaimer: i refuse to participate in the flamewars, and this post
is not intended as a flame or as support or anything else to do with
flamewars.
--
louise
louise's list of BDSM organizations in the US & Canada:
http://www.magenta.com/lmnop/users/louise/BDSMorgs.html
Already we are boldly launched upon the deep; but soon we shall
be lost in its unshored, harborless immensities. -- H. Melville, 1851
DonSideB
In article <36b2717a....@news.mindspring.com>, lou...@links.magenta.com
(louise) writes:
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 01:05:01 -0500, Robert Dante <B...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
>>More than once I've seen the lightbulb go off over a Dom/me's head when
>>they realize that the punishment they usually use, like spanking, is not
>>going to change the behaviour of a masochist who truly wishes to be
>>punished.
>
>As a person who is physically masochistic, and by that i mean that
>certain types of pain are literally physically pleasurable to me
>regardless of mental interpretations, i find it astonishing that any
>Dom/me that you know who had been exposed to the scene would be so
>naive as to expect bare hand spanking, for example, to be a punishment
>for someone like me.
>
Odd, it is very different for me. i am about as masochistic as you can get, and
i am happy as a possum in persimmons when Mistress spanks, whips or otherwise
tortures me, so long as the smile is on her face when she does it.
But if she is displeased and i have disappointed her, a punishment beating is
just as unpleasant for me as it would be for any vanilla guy yanked off the
street.
YMMV,
don
That which does not kill us is a good scene,
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Tidewater Virginia
Dremaer
thinks she's a masochist - that she enjoys pain. I think she enjoys intense
stimulation in an eroticized content. (Tomato, tohmahto.)
I took a cue from some excellent books from Greenery Press (Bottoming Book,
Topping Book, KinkyCrafts) and decided to demonstrate to her that she is
*not* a masochist. (One of my favorite lines from those books is, "We'll
believe in pure masochism when we meet someone who can come from stubbing
his/her toe.")
One bit of advice/observation was that many tops keep one or two *very*
intense toys in the bottom of the old toy bag as a surprise for bottoms who
think they can't get enough. After she bought a copy of KinkyCrafts (hint,
hint, thought I) I decided to try my hand at a few of them.
One poppa bare, one quite large and one quite small bungee whip, and one
truly vicious (I tried it on myself, which looked a little silly but I think
I got the flavor of it) leather paddle later - which isn't bad for a week -
I think I've about got the argument won, and she can almost sit down again.
*lol* That last bit was a joke. I do have the argument won, and it wasn't
necessary to bruise her to prove it. She *does* listen from time to time...
Dremaer
--
"The suspense is terrible....
I hope it'll last."
-Gene Wilder, "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory"
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/9251/geohome.html
----------
In article <36b2717a....@news.mindspring.com>,
louise
wrote:
>Odd, it is very different for me. i am about as masochistic as you can get, and
>i am happy as a possum in persimmons when Mistress spanks, whips or otherwise
>tortures me, so long as the smile is on her face when she does it.
>
>But if she is displeased and i have disappointed her, a punishment beating is
>just as unpleasant for me as it would be for any vanilla guy yanked off the
>street.
Well i might be very unhappy about the fact that a need was seen for
my punishment, but that wouldn't prevent the spanking from feeling
pleasant physically. It's just the way i am wired i guess.
louise
wrote:
>One poppa bare, one quite large and one quite small bungee whip, and one
>truly vicious (I tried it on myself, which looked a little silly but I think
>I got the flavor of it) leather paddle later - which isn't bad for a week -
>I think I've about got the argument won, and she can almost sit down again.
One of my favorite SM activities is being spanked by a leather paddle,
especially one with a metal insert. Whips made of bungee strandlets
are very thuddy and don't seem like much of anything special to me
compared with other whips.
But you are right, there are some kinds of pain that are *not*
pleasurable to me. My dentist says i'm a big wimp, one of the most
cowardly patients he has. And there are some specific kinds of pain a
Sadist could inflict on me safely, that would be punishment. But He
would have to ask and find out what they are and how to proceed so as
not to move into the sphere of pleasure. However, Nobody has done this
yet.
i'm not saying there aren't kinds of pain that are unpleasant to me.
But if a Top thinks i'm going to object to a bare hand spanking, it
seems to me like he's gotta be really naive.
Steven S. Davis
: On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 01:05:01 -0500, Robert Dante <B...@netcom.ca> wrote:
:
: >More than once I've seen the lightbulb go off over a Dom/me's head when
: >they realize that the punishment they usually use, like spanking, is not
: >going to change the behaviour of a masochist who truly wishes to be
: >punished.
:
: As a person who is physically masochistic, and by that i mean that
: certain types of pain are literally physically pleasurable to me
: regardless of mental interpretations, i find it astonishing that any
: Dom/me that you know who had been exposed to the scene would be so
: naive as to expect bare hand spanking, for example, to be a punishment
: for someone like me.
There's lots of dumb dominants, or at least dumb people who think they
are dominants. Moreover there are many dominants who haven't been exposed
to the scene and know what they think they know from chatrooms and
bad fiction.
As it happens, you've both missed the point, which is what animal
trainers have long known, that punishment isn't a good means of
behavior modification. To modify someone's behavior you need
to make zir want to do what you want zir to do, and this is not the
same as making them afraid of not doing what you want them to do.
Wiitwd is full of paradoxes, and one which people won't learn from
most BDSM fiction (which is often full of people being forced to do
things they hate doing by the use of brute force or sheer terror
(sickphuxes, some of these authors of BDSM fiction)) is that the key
to power is not making someone do what zie doesn't want to do (only
a dominant so weak and insecure that zie feels the need to test
zir power needs to do such things), but rather making zir want to do
the things one wants zir to do. Not as much of an ego boost,
perhaps, for those whose egos need such boosts, but a much more
effective and lasting form of dominance over a person.
Punishment can modify behavior, of course. One can change the way
one's dog behaves by beating it whenever it acts in ways one doesn't
like. It's just not a good way, nor one which is most likely to
develop the behaviors one does like.
The same with people. Though with people one has the advantage of
being able to explain why one is doing the punishment, so - if the
punishment isn't haphazard or random or deliberately perverse
(note perverse/perversity is not the same as perverted/perversion;
"perverse" identifies behavior which is contrary to one's on
(supposed purposes, and perverse punishments can come either from
incompetence or, sometimes, as in the "the sky is red/the sky is green"
scenario, from an abusive intention to break down the subject's
trust in zir own judgement an induce learned helplessness) - the
person will know what it is one wants zir to do, and, if zie wants
to do what one wants zir to do, that will be the primary cause
of the change, with the punishment being a secondary contributor
(which still doesn't mean that it's a good way to modify behavior
(well, good in terms of effective it is in getting behavior to change;
it may be "good" in terms of how much the dominant enjoys applying the
punishment; I really don't want to YKINOK, and I am all in favor of
dominants applying pain to their submissives whenever and for whatever
reason that the dominant wants, but for me, personally, I find it
creepy that anyone would enjoy applying real (not play) punishments
to someone zie supposedly cares about, and I would never submit or
remain submissive to someone who did enjoy that; YMMV)).
It's probably pretty obvious that I don't much care for punishment
(which includes such nonphysical punishment as withdrawls of
attention; this does not mean that I would disagree with a dominant's
choice to not play with someone who didn't submit or persisted in
acting up; my own view here is, "If you want to submit, fine, then
submit; if you do not want to submit, that's OK also, and let me know
when you are interested in submitting"; YMMV). However, real
punishment - i.e. *not* play punishments, which of course aren't
really punishments at all - does have some valuable effects for some
submissives.
Even though it sucks as behavior modification.
The two major benefits of punishment are expiation, to help the
submissive get over the guilt and pain of zir failure, and
affirmation, the assertion by the dominant (and assurance to the
submissive) that the dominant does care about the rules/orders
zie puts out, and does care about the submissives conduct, and
cares enough to be willing to bother zirself with the unpleasant
task of administering correction (which need not necessarily be
what would generally be thought of as punishment).
Neither of these must necessarily be severe, nor need they be
particularly "sexy", and they probably should not be attractive
to either party. Useful punishment, IMO, is not enjoyable to
either the dominant or the submissive.
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
The SSB Homepage: http://www.phszx81.demon.co.uk/ssb/
The ASB/SSB Welcome: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/wel.htm
My homepage: http://links.magenta.com/lmnop/users/sd/sd.html
louise
wrote:
>As it happens, you've both missed the point, which is what animal
>trainers have long known, that punishment isn't a good means of
>behavior modification. To modify someone's behavior you need
>to make zir want to do what you want zir to do, and this is not the
>same as making them afraid of not doing what you want them to do.
As i recall from psychology classes taken in the Dark Ages, negative
reinforcement works, positive reinforcement works better, and best is
a combination of both. i pretend no expertise, and the class in which
i was taught this is one that i took in 1969. But this is neither here
nor there, because i am not a Top. It's not my concern or my business.
My point was that these people do not appear to be Doms at all.
Maybe a glass of warm milk before posting would help, Steven.
>for me, personally, I find it
>creepy that anyone would enjoy applying real (not play) punishments
>to someone zie supposedly cares about, and I would never submit or
>remain submissive to someone who did enjoy that; YMMV)).
Exactly. YKIOK, but when it comes to my kink, when i am in submission,
i do what my Dominant tells me to do. If that involves punishment i
accept it without question and don't go mouthing off about His
teaching practices. YMMV and apparently does.
> Useful punishment, IMO, is not enjoyable to
>either the dominant or the submissive.
i've never served a Dominant who enjoyed punishing me, and i sure
don't enjoy it either. But that has no implications to me. In my style
of kink, it's not up to me to control or manage what is done in D/s
when i am in submission.
Katharine Hawks
wrote:
<snip>
>As it happens, you've both missed the point, which is what animal
>trainers have long known, that punishment isn't a good means of
>behavior modification. To modify someone's behavior you need
>to make zir want to do what you want zir to do, and this is not the
>same as making them afraid of not doing what you want them to do.
Depending on what you mean by "punishment" -- this may not
necessarily be true. In dog handling we call it "correction", which
is definately a negative reinforcement. Corrections can be either
verbal or physical. Typical physical corrections may include a collar
pop, an alpha roll, a shake by the scruff, and so on.
Punishment is never appropriate, since dogs don't feel guilt nor
remorse, nor do they need catharsis. They generally don't remember
what they did wrong.
Corrections have to be carefully timed to coincide with the
misbehavior, or the pooch gets confused about what exactly he's doing
wrong. (Note, I'm not a pro like Shirley -- just know some basics as
applied to the WonderDog, who is not a human-dog, but a dog-dog.)
Lots of dog owners poorly time their corrections and they become
ineffective and often create problems with fear, mistrust, etc. For
example, imagine someone who calls their dog and the dog doesn't come.
When the dog decides to mosey back to the owner five minutes later,
the owner gives him a verbal correction. The dog is therefore being
taught that coming to master is a bad thing. In lots of cases, it's
not the correction that's wrong, but the timing of the correction.
Just an FYI.
And for what it's worth -- I use corrections in (human) D/s, both
verbal and physical. Punishment is a separate category for me.
--Katharine
**SSBB Diplomatic Corps, Chicago**
**********************************
"My Vicious Valentine"
A weekend-long fetish & leather event in Chicago
Valentine's Day Weekend
www.mjsleathernet.com for more info
Janet Hardy
>This ties into a little difference of opinion I have with my slave. She
>thinks she's a masochist - that she enjoys pain. I think she enjoys intense
>stimulation in an eroticized content. (Tomato, tohmahto.)
>
>I took a cue from some excellent books from Greenery Press (Bottoming Book,
>Topping Book, KinkyCrafts) and decided to demonstrate to her that she is
>*not* a masochist. (One of my favorite lines from those books is, "We'll
>believe in pure masochism when we meet someone who can come from stubbing
>his/her toe.")
>
>One bit of advice/observation was that many tops keep one or two *very*
>intense toys in the bottom of the old toy bag as a surprise for bottoms who
>think they can't get enough. After she bought a copy of KinkyCrafts (hint,
>hint, thought I) I decided to try my hand at a few of them.
>
>truly vicious (I tried it on myself, which looked a little silly but I
think
>I got the flavor of it) leather paddle later - which isn't bad for a week -
>I think I've about got the argument won, and she can almost sit down again.
>
>necessary to bruise her to prove it. She *does* listen from time to time...
Yeep. I'm one of the authors of those books. Just because you can give her a
kind of pain that she doesn't enjoy, doesn't mean she isn't a masochist (if
you work your way back through all those negatives you'll find that sentence
does indeed make sense).
A masochist is someone who has the ability to eroticize some forms of
stimuli which would be painful to someone else. C'est tout. Most people have
the ability to be masochistic under the proper circumstances.
One of my pet peeves is the individual who tells me, "I'm not a masochist
like you -- to me, pain *hurts*." Well, geeze, pain hurts me too; it's just
that under certain circumstances, it also turns me on.
There's the kind of pain that is such a direct turn-on that I have to pay
attention to it to notice that it's also hurting (a moderate spanking is
this kind, for me). There's the kind that I have to fight and wrestle and
white-knuckle it through, arguing with myself every minute not to safeword,
only to discover afterwards that I'm dripping wet (a pair of tough nipple
clamps do this to me). Then there's the kind that scares me enough that
neither the pain nor the turn-on matters; I'm just scared (the pain of
having my arms or neck wrenched or twisted, say by some kinds of bondage).
And then there's the kind that is simply non-erotic (nonconsensual pain such
as a toe-stub or a root-canal).
I would expect that your slave probably experiences all these kinds of pain
as well, although the stimuli are probably different. And that makes her,
IMO, a masochist.
(BTW, try the paddle made from the sole of a kung-fu shoe if you really want
to convince her that she's had enough. I carry one for my favorite masochist
for that exact reason.)
Verdant
louise
<ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>And then there's the kind that is simply non-erotic (nonconsensual pain such
>as a toe-stub or a root-canal).
(giggle) umm.... well if my dentist did a nonconsensual root canal on
me, i'd be really pissed. :)
i don't know why the pain of dentistry bothers me so much. When i was
a child, it was *indeed* nonconsensual, because my parents consented,
not me. And back then, with no anesthetic and inferior equipment, it
really did hurt. Maybe that is why i still am terrified of the
dentist, despite the advent of relatively painless dentistry. My
dentist is always clearly informed of even the slightest little tweak
of pain and he has taken to giving me lots of anesthetic. LOL
i could possibly get into a toe-stub if there were sufficient warm-up.
i think in that case, it is the surprise and suddenness that is
objectionable. It's sort of a self-protection reflex to object to
sudden unexpected strong pain, maybe.
-^-^spectrum-^^-
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:21:23 -0800, "Janet Hardy"
><ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>And then there's the kind that is simply non-erotic
>>(nonconsensual pain such as a toe-stub or a root-canal).
louise:
>(giggle) umm.... well if my dentist did a nonconsensual root canal
>on me, i'd be really pissed. :)
[snip]
>i could possibly get into a toe-stub if there were sufficient
>warm-up. i think in that case, it is the surprise and suddenness
>that is objectionable. It's sort of a self-protection reflex to
>object to sudden unexpected strong pain, maybe.
Experience in pain play has helped me learn to deal with pain
better than I used to. The toe-stub or bee sting still hurts as
much as ever at the moment that it happens, but I can take a
second moment to *process* the pain and reduce it. It doesn't feel
actually *good* then, but I'm no longer panicked when I feel pain.
I assess the damage, and in the cases of minor harm, sort of let
it hurt while my brain goes on to other things. Definitely a
useful skill.
-^-^spectrum-^^- spec...@magenta.COM
Tales of the ASBWorld: http://magenta.com/lmnop/users/spectrum
The description of Pervhome and the Guestbook are there also.
"No pain, no pain." - my HS coach
victorian squid
<ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> A masochist is someone who has the ability to eroticize some forms of
> stimuli which would be painful to someone else. C'est tout. Most people have
> the ability to be masochistic under the proper circumstances.
>
> One of my pet peeves is the individual who tells me, "I'm not a masochist
> like you -- to me, pain *hurts*." Well, geeze, pain hurts me too; it's just
> that under certain circumstances, it also turns me on.
OK, I -suspect- I'm one of those people that peeves Verdant :).
But I will stubbornly maintain that I don't consider myself a masochist in
the sense that it is most often used around here. Physical pain doesn't
turn me on much. When I say something like "to me, it hurts", I'm mostly
sloppy-usaging (there goes the queen of neologisms again!). I don't mean
to imply that if I were a masochist, no pain would hurt! And I also don't
mean to imply that there aren't complex, individual reactions to different
kinds of pain in different contexts.
I mean that generally speaking I don't seem to get out of it what some
other people get out of it. Perhaps that is also what other people mean
when they say this, perhaps not. But it's what I mean when I say I'm not a
masochist.
I think it depends how you define a masochist too. Technically I suppose I
would be if you include "mental masochists".
Love on ya,
Susan
Steven S. Davis
louise (lou...@links.magenta.com) wrote:
: As i recall from psychology classes taken in the Dark Ages, negative
: reinforcement works,
Punishment and negative reinforcement aren't quite the same thing.
Perhaps one of the people who knows this area better than I will define
the difference better than I could. Yes, electrify one side of a cage
and the creature in the cage will quickly learn to stay on the other side.
Beating the creature whenever it wanders onto that side of the cage
may teach it eventually to avoid the part of the cage, and may teach it
other things that weren't intended and aren't desired.
: positive reinforcement works better, and best is
: a combination of both. i pretend no expertise, and the class in which
: i was taught this is one that i took in 1969. But this is neither here
: nor there, because i am not a Top. It's not my concern or my business.
: My point was that these people do not appear to be Doms at all.
I'd show them the courtesy of saying they were dumb doms (I suppose
that whether or not one wishes to shoot dumb doms is a personal
choice ;-> ) or inexperienced doms.
: Maybe a glass of warm milk before posting would help, Steven.
Thank you, no. I'll leave the milk to the cats.
callieslv
Katherine, etc ... and I just gotta toss my nickel in, too.
Punishment, correction, negative re-inforcement ... I can see the
differences when they are explained (thanks, Lady Katherine), and I can
understand that Louise may find all methods of spankings to be good.
I have rules to follow. I try very hard to follow those rules. Sometimes,
though, I mess up. I know damn good and well that unless there is a gag on
me, I am to ask before I cum. What happens when I get so overwhelmed by my
own body that I forget? A reminder happens. The last time, it was 6 rather
stinging slaps on my ass, each one counted, and each one bringing tears.
How many times has it happened? Yes, it's been more than once, but they are
far between. I've been through close to an hour of being made to wait -
while bound, dammit - just the thought of ropes makes me wet, and I'm
supposed to lay there and watch the clock and know that I can't cum until it
reaches a certain time? What, are you crazy, Master? There's no way in
hell I can do this!! Sure there is, as long as he keeps poking his head in
on me, gently reminding me verbally every 10 minutes that I can do this,
that there's not a lot of time left, that each minute that goes by is one
less to deal with. By the time the hour passed, I was near exhaustion from
fighting myself. But the reward for making it was grand!
I don't follow rules for the reward. I follow rules because I want to. I
don't expect a reward for bringing the perfect cup of tea. I am surprised
almost every time when he kisses me - grabbing my hair, interrupting my
keystrokes on the computer, just because he got up for a second, and decided
I was in need of a kiss.
The worst punishment in the world, I think I give myself. Not all that long
ago, there was a question of whether I really trusted him. For the next few
hours, I was physically ill. This relationship was long distance, and I
couldn't even speak coherently on the phone to him, the bile kept rising in
me. The mere thought that I had given him such an impression!
And - there is, in this relationship, the gift he gives me - the ability to
say "I disagree, I think that's too much for the error committed". We've
been known to hold back a punishment for a little while and discuss the
"payment for the crime". Twenty lashes for something minor? I don't think
so. I think he over-reacted. And in less than 2 minutes' time, he'd
reconsidered, settled himself a little, and agreed with me - so I got 10.
Still enough to upset me. Still enough to make me cry.
I can get wet with a little slap to a denim-covered ass. I can cum with 3
of those same slaps to a bare ass. It's my "wiring". (thanks for the term,
Louise). It's also my wiring that gives me the reaction I get when I
realize I've done it wrong.
The worst he could do to me, is silence, neglect (my opinion of it),
withhold his touch. But even though there are times when the previously
corrected error has been committed again, they don't show up again quickly,
they don't come the next day.
And I certainly don't use the word "punishment" when I ask to be whipped. I
don't say "I've been a bad girl, beat me". Hell no, I might even go get the
flogger and say "this hasn't been used enough lately".
As strong as I am, as much as I love having a clamp put on very tightly and
twisted, as much as wooden clothespins are becoming an "ewww", I still react
very strongly when I know what I'm being given is because I have done
something incorrectly.
And I hope I stay that way.
I'm glad Louise is different, though. What if all of us did everything the
exact same way? What if we all reacted the same? Yuck. Louise, I hope you
can find that Dominant who will ask what implement to use that will convince
you that it's punishment. Lady Katherine, may your timing always be proper.
Count's callie
SilverOz
victorian squid <underwate...@usa.net> wrote:
>OK, I -suspect- I'm one of those people that peeves Verdant :).
Me too :)
>
>But I will stubbornly maintain that I don't consider myself a masochist in
>the sense that it is most often used around here. Physical pain doesn't
>turn me on much. When I say something like "to me, it hurts", I'm mostly
I well remember that when I first started getting into learning
about BDSM, I read asb and various other net.resources and the
underlying (and occasionally up front) thing was "Oh yes! that was
good! I like this!" whenever talking about flogging or painplay
generally.
The overwhelming impression was that it was somehow different to
"normal pain", this was only reinforced by the famous "stub your
toe" argument.
Somehow, it seemed, the trappings of BDSM made pain not hurt but
feel good. Must be so, because no one said "it hurt" they all said
how much they loved it, wanted it, needed it, how *good* it was.
Needless to say, my first experience of painplay was a very unpleasant
shock. (not helped by my dom telling me how wonderful it would be. *He*
was a masochist too.)
Now many years later I know a bit more. I know that some people seem
to transmute pain into something else but they are a minority. I know
that some people get this "endorphin high" thing and they want the
pain because it leads to that. Some people find spankings don't hurt
in the same way as other pain, and they like that.
And I know I'm none of the above.
I do painplay purely as submission. I don't want to be hurt, but
there does come a time when I want him to hurt me not because I
get anything out of it phyically - endorphins or whatever - but because
it is submission, I want to give him that pain I hate.
But I'm no masochist, and I still feel like I'm on the outer because
I don't do this "oh lovely, painplay, we all like to be flogged" thing.
SilverOz
Lacenlthrs
SilverOz succinctly expounded:
>Now many years later I know a bit more. I know that some people seem
>to transmute pain into something else but they are a minority. I know
>that some people get this "endorphin high" thing and they want the
>pain because it leads to that. Some people find spankings don't hurt
>in the same way as other pain, and they like that.
>
Hmmm, I don't know if I'm one of Verdant's "peeve-ees" or not. <G>
Once upon a time, I had a very low pain threshold. I would NEVER have described
myself as anything *close* to a masochist. My first Master (bless him) slowly
and carefully rewired me, by mixing pain with pleasure (flogging with fondling,
etc.) until all the sensations blended together. At first, I couldn't tolerate
much pain at all without some "incentive" to go with it. Gradually, I could
accept pure pain, mostly as an act of submission. Finally, over two years'
time, the flogging could get me just as wet, in and of itself, as the fondling
could--sometimes more so. Now, on less-than-rare occasions, a serious flogging
or concentrated nipple torture (Master's favorite) can make me cum, all by
itself. Who'd a thunk it?
I still wince at the "noncon" dentist type stuff, but my tolerance is much
higher.
KarenJ
Robert Dante
> Odd, it is very different for me. i am about as masochistic as you can get, and
> i am happy as a possum in persimmons when Mistress spanks, whips or otherwise
> tortures me, so long as the smile is on her face when she does it.
> But if she is displeased and i have disappointed her, a punishment beating is
> just as unpleasant for me as it would be for any vanilla guy yanked off the
> street.
Excellent feedback, which is the purpose of this newsgroup, beyond being
a flamefest.
Personally, I have not encountered such as you, except in conversation.
It would indicate a sensitivity to the motive as the drive for the act
-- most good Tops I know prefer the ignore path (as in, "If this is what
they do for attention, the punishment is to withhold attention.").
Thank you for your input -- your owner is fortunate to enjoy such a
clear communication with you -- I sm sure it benefits you both.
best regards,
ROBERT DANTE
Robert Dante
> A masochist is someone who has the ability to eroticize some forms of
> stimuli which would be painful to someone else. C'est tout. Most people have
> the ability to be masochistic under the proper circumstances.
Applause from R Dante. "Well said."
As I say in my bullwhip video, "The easiest thing in then world is for
one person to hurt another. It becomes SM when BOTH people enjoy it."
best regards,
Robert Dante
out to email.ix.netcom.com
<kha...@enteract.com> wrote:
>On 28 Jan 1999 17:35:03 GMT, s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis)
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>As it happens, you've both missed the point, which is what animal
>>trainers have long known, that punishment isn't a good means of
>>behavior modification. To modify someone's behavior you need
>>to make zir want to do what you want zir to do, and this is not the
>>same as making them afraid of not doing what you want them to do.
>
>Depending on what you mean by "punishment" -- this may not
>necessarily be true. In dog handling we call it "correction", which
>is definately a negative reinforcement. Corrections can be either
>verbal or physical. Typical physical corrections may include a collar
>pop, an alpha roll, a shake by the scruff, and so on.
>
>Punishment is never appropriate, since dogs don't feel guilt nor
>remorse, nor do they need catharsis. They generally don't remember
>what they did wrong.
>
>Corrections have to be carefully timed to coincide with the
>misbehavior, or the pooch gets confused about what exactly he's doing
>wrong. (Note, I'm not a pro like Shirley -- just know some basics as
>applied to the WonderDog, who is not a human-dog, but a dog-dog.)
>Lots of dog owners poorly time their corrections and they become
>ineffective and often create problems with fear, mistrust, etc. For
>example, imagine someone who calls their dog and the dog doesn't come.
>When the dog decides to mosey back to the owner five minutes later,
>the owner gives him a verbal correction. The dog is therefore being
>taught that coming to master is a bad thing. In lots of cases, it's
>not the correction that's wrong, but the timing of the correction.
>
>Just an FYI.
>
>And for what it's worth -- I use corrections in (human) D/s, both
>verbal and physical. Punishment is a separate category for me.
Well no, correction works with dogs, but not nearly as fast and as
well as positive reinforcement. Obviously with a dog you have to
correct at the time and place of the misbehavior or the dog hasn't a
clue why you are punishing him and as Katharine says, may easily
associate it with coming as called and you now have a dog that will
come close but irritatingly not close enough to be touched when called
(ever wonder before why they do that? Now you know).
What is most effective is to allow the dog no other choice but to do
as desired and then praise the heck out 'em and give him a cookie.
Then they associate the proper behavior with positive reinforcement
and especially with a dog that responds well to tidbits, your training
goes much faster.
The way you allow the dog no other choice, is to take them outside
right after a meal or sleep when they normally would pee and then
praise them when they do so in the correct spot, or when telling them
to sit - push their butts down so they have to - and then praise them
like they did it themselves.
I couldn't say how this relates to sub training. You throw sadism and
masochism on one side or the other or both and we are no longer
talking about training, but about playing and the dynamics will be
different for each situation.
Arrow
Dremaer
(louise) wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:47:21 -0600, "Dremaer" <dre...@geocities.com>
> wrote:
>
>>One poppa bare, one quite large and one quite small bungee whip, and one
>>truly vicious (I tried it on myself, which looked a little silly but I think
>>I got the flavor of it) leather paddle later - which isn't bad for a week -
>>I think I've about got the argument won, and she can almost sit down again.
>
> One of my favorite SM activities is being spanked by a leather paddle,
> especially one with a metal insert.
She *hates* that paddle. Absolutely hates it. I didn't even *make* the one
with the metal insert yet. I sort of wonder if she'll hate it more, or less.
Seems that if it's less flexible it might not hurt so much. Haven't used a
lot of paddles, personally. Lots and lots of whips/floggers, but this is
first paddle I've owned.
> Whips made of bungee strandlets
> are very thuddy and don't seem like much of anything special to me
> compared with other whips.
It depends, it turns out, on three things. These three things are the exact
same three things, naturally, that determines where on the stingy/thuddy
continuum *any* whip/flogger/whatever lies. Bungee whips seem to be quite a
bit more variable than other whips:
1) How thick the ropes are: The thicker the cord that you make the whip out
of , the thuddier the whip is. One 1/4" cord can make quite a stingy whip.
Three 3/8" cords bound together properly makes a very thuddy whip, not
unlike a nylon flogger but with more friction due to the different material.
(Sorry for all you SI users, I'd prefer it myself but this is America...
multiply by 25.4 to get mm diameters for the cords.)
2) How long the strands are: This makes a *huge* difference. Short ones are
thuddy. Period. It seems to be more the fact that they all hit at the same
time than the relative speed of the thing: small ones and large ones have
much the same characteristics.
3) The angle and speed of the swing: Of course, this is critical. Even a
short one can sting if you just swipe with the tip. And if you let it wrap,
it's going to sting when it lashes around.
I have a big one that's very thuddy... unless you only use the tip. It's
very long and the tip is moving *very* fast when it hits. *That* smarts. I
have a small one that's *very* stingy, because there's not much to it: swing
it hard at all and it's going to smack a very small area very hard. And of
course it depends on where you're hitting, how fast, how hard, how aroused
the person is, if the area and/or the whip are wet, etc.
Dremaer
--
Cutter John's Theory of Temporo-Natal Irrelevance:
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood!"
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/9251/geohome.html
If you live near Chicago, you should check out "Galleria Domain," a spiffy
new D&s/fetish club open nightly. It's way cool. This is a totally
unsolicited testimonial, but the operators are friends of mine, if that
makes a difference. Link: http://www.galleriadomain.com
Katharine Hawks
wrote:
>On 28 Jan 1999 16:41:17 GMT, dons...@aol.combackatyu (DonSideB)
>wrote:
>
>>Odd, it is very different for me. i am about as masochistic as you can get, and
>>i am happy as a possum in persimmons when Mistress spanks, whips or otherwise
>>tortures me, so long as the smile is on her face when she does it.
>>
>>But if she is displeased and i have disappointed her, a punishment beating is
>>just as unpleasant for me as it would be for any vanilla guy yanked off the
>>street.
>
>Well i might be very unhappy about the fact that a need was seen for
>my punishment, but that wouldn't prevent the spanking from feeling
>pleasant physically. It's just the way i am wired i guess.
Most bottoms I know are a little more like donsideb -- if the
punishment is being done in a ritualistic setting, with the dominant
fully expressing hir displeasure, I haven't seen many bottoms wriggle
their butts in pleasure and delight out of a masochistic response.
I'm more used to seeing tears and sorrow.
Dremaer
I wasn't going to get into this, but I love definition arguments... *smile*
----------
In article <36b0a5fc....@news.enteract.com>, Katharine Hawks
<kha...@enteract.com> wrote:
(Steven S. Davis wrote...)
>>As it happens, you've both missed the point, which is what animal
>>trainers have long known, that punishment isn't a good means of
>>behavior modification. To modify someone's behavior you need
>>to make zir want to do what you want zir to do, and this is not the
>>same as making them afraid of not doing what you want them to do.
I beg to differ. This is USUALLY the easiest and most effective way to
*persuade* a *human being* to do something. However, it is not the only way,
it is not always the most effective way, and the proper technique is highly
situation/behavior/organism dependent. See below.
(Katherine S. Hawks wrote...)
> Depending on what you mean by "punishment" -- this may not
> necessarily be true. In dog handling we call it "correction", which
> is definately a negative reinforcement. Corrections can be either
> verbal or physical. Typical physical corrections may include a collar
> pop, an alpha roll, a shake by the scruff, and so on.
The two things one can do to try to modify an organism's behavior are
reinforce desired behaviors and punish undesired behaviors. Unless the
organism is sentient, the initial imposition of behavior modification can
only be done when the organism displays the relevant behavior by accident or
by a series of intermediate steps (the first one must still be performed by
accident or be a natural behavior.)
The "proper" terms for the various responses to actions which modify the
behavior are as follows:
1) Negative Reinforcement: This is when you *remove* an *undesirable*
condition when an *appropriate* behavior is displayed. For instance, to use
dogs as an example, you might produce a sound which the dog finds
unpleasant, which will continue until the dog does something desirable, like
lie down quietly. Note that it is *very* difficult to induce a *new*
behavior with negative reinforcement because unless the organism stumbles
across the proper behavior by accident it will take a long time for it to
start working. Also, since the negative reinforcement is putting stress on
the organism, it will take longer for the association to form.
2) Positive Reinforcement: The classic push a lever, get a pellet action. A
desired condition (food, praise, stimulation of the pleasure center) is
*added* to the situation when an appropriate behavior is displayed. This
method generally works the fastest of any of the behavior modification
methods but is not the most effective.
3) Negative Punishment: A desirable condition is removed from the situation
when an inappropriate behavior is displayed. For instance, food may be
withheld until the organism moves away from a certain area in its cage and
stays out of it for a desired length of time.
4) Positive Punishment: The classic push the wrong lever, get a shock
action. An undesirable condition is added to the situation when an
inappropriate behavior is displayed. This method, again generally, produces
the longest-lasting behavior modification. ("A cat who has once sat on a hot
stove lid will never do it again, but it will never sit on a cold one,
either." - Mark Twain.)
Technically these are all different, although logically one can make a case
that negative reinforcement is the same as positive punishment and vice
versa. Also, they can be used in tandem: when paper training a dog, one uses
positive punishment *and* positive reinforcement. As far as which works
best, the answer is: "It depends." Control theory tells us that a system
governed only by positive feedback will oscillate out of control. This is a
mathematical certainty. However, the variables involved are fearsomely
complex and, in the words of one immortal biologist, "Under the most
precisely controlled parameters of temperature, pressure, humidity, and so
forth, the organism will do as it damn well pleases." *lol*
Also, one must be very, very careful and aware of all potential associations
formed. The classic example of accidental behavior modification is in "A
Clockwork Orange," when they play lovely, lovely Ludwig Von (Beethoven)
while they're conditioning the poor slob against violent behavior by showing
him violent movies and inducing nausea in him. The anti-violence
conditioning works... but he also gets sick whenever he hears Beethoven.
This example also demonstrates the latent weakness of behavior modification:
the more intelligent the organism, the more likely it is to break free of
its conditioning after the passage of time once the behavior modification
action ceases.
</rant>
Dremaer
In article <78q9i9$8b1$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Janet Hardy"
<ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Dremaer wrote in message ...
>>This ties into a little difference of opinion I have with my slave. She
>>thinks she's a masochist - that she enjoys pain. I think she enjoys intense
>>stimulation in an eroticized content. (Tomato, tohmahto.)
>>
>>I took a cue from some excellent books from Greenery Press (Bottoming Book,
>>Topping Book, KinkyCrafts) and decided to demonstrate to her that she is
>>*not* a masochist. (One of my favorite lines from those books is, "We'll
>>believe in pure masochism when we meet someone who can come from stubbing
>>his/her toe.")
<snip>
> Yeep. I'm one of the authors of those books.
Uh-oh. Can't use my typical "you don't really understand where the author
was coming from" argument." *smile* Just kidding. Thanks for the excellent
book, btw.
> Just because you can give her a
> kind of pain that she doesn't enjoy, doesn't mean she isn't a masochist (if
> you work your way back through all those negatives you'll find that sentence
> does indeed make sense).
>
> A masochist is someone who has the ability to eroticize some forms of
> stimuli which would be painful to someone else. C'est tout. Most people have
> the ability to be masochistic under the proper circumstances.
Like *yuck warning: don't read if easily squicked* picking at scabs. It
hurts, but you just have to do it. I know that's not usually an *erotic*
situation, but it's along those lines and it's near universal - almost
everybody does it, admit it or not. *smile*
<snip stuff about different kinds of pain>
> I would expect that your slave probably experiences all these kinds of pain
> as well, although the stimuli are probably different. And that makes her,
> IMO, a masochist.
Definitions again. On this point I will concede that most people would
probably agree that she's a masochist. To me a masochist is someone who
enjoys it *despite* the fact that it is coming through loud and clear as
pain. When she feels intense stimulation in an erotic context it's like a
filter kicks in that routs it to the pleasure center instead of the pain
center. She does not experience, so far as I can tell, the situation where
right now it hurts but after she realizes she's hideously turned on (the
nipple clamp example you give, for instance, would not work for her.) Either
it's erotic, or it hurts. I have known people who could have it both ways
(it's erotic *and* it hurts) but she doesn't seem to. That was what I meant.
> (BTW, try the paddle made from the sole of a kung-fu shoe if you really want
> to convince her that she's had enough. I carry one for my favorite masochist
> for that exact reason.)
Check. *grin*
louise
wrote:
>She *hates* that paddle. Absolutely hates it. I didn't even *make* the one
>with the metal insert yet. I sort of wonder if she'll hate it more, or less.
>Seems that if it's less flexible it might not hurt so much. Haven't used a
>lot of paddles, personally. Lots and lots of whips/floggers, but this is
>first paddle I've owned.
Different people have different responses, and there is nothing wrong
with that. Thank goodness for diversity. Large, moderately heavy
wooden paddles feel utterly wonderful to me, but leave dark jet-black
bruising that requires that i wait a couple of weeks before playing
again. My favorite paddles are made from natural materials, like
leather or wood, though plastics are fine too.
If you have a good leather shop nearby that stocks SM toys, why not go
there and try a few paddles on your own forearm, to get more of a
sense of what type and level of sensation can be provided by different
materials and construction methods.
>> Whips made of bungee strandlets
>> are very thuddy and don't seem like much of anything special to me
>> compared with other whips.
>
>It depends, it turns out, on three things. These three things are the exact
>same three things, naturally, that determines where on the stingy/thuddy
>continuum *any* whip/flogger/whatever lies. Bungee whips seem to be quite a
>bit more variable than other whips:
i do agree on your three things, as far as floggers of a given
material are concerned. i have experienced bungee whips of various
lengths and weight, and although they look really neat they are not my
personal preference as far as feel. Not to say i don't like them, LOL!
And perhaps the difference is in the application. However i have had
way better experiences with substantial conventional rubber floggers
rather than bungee, when it comes to that sort of material.
i doubt there are any two bottoms that respond exactly alike to
anything, though. :)
Dremaer
In article <slrn7b1qrk...@zipper.zip.com.au>, ze...@zip.com.au
(SilverOz) wrote:
> In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:51:39 GMT
> victorian squid <underwate...@usa.net> wrote:
>>OK, I -suspect- I'm one of those people that peeves Verdant :).
>
> Me too :)
>
>>
>>But I will stubbornly maintain that I don't consider myself a masochist in
>>the sense that it is most often used around here. Physical pain doesn't
>>turn me on much. When I say something like "to me, it hurts", I'm mostly
>
> I well remember that when I first started getting into learning
> about BDSM, I read asb and various other net.resources and the
> underlying (and occasionally up front) thing was "Oh yes! that was
> good! I like this!" whenever talking about flogging or painplay
> generally.
>
> The overwhelming impression was that it was somehow different to
> "normal pain", this was only reinforced by the famous "stub your
> toe" argument.
>
> Somehow, it seemed, the trappings of BDSM made pain not hurt but
> feel good. Must be so, because no one said "it hurt" they all said
> how much they loved it, wanted it, needed it, how *good* it was.
>
> Needless to say, my first experience of painplay was a very unpleasant
> shock. (not helped by my dom telling me how wonderful it would be. *He*
> was a masochist too.)
>
> Now many years later I know a bit more. I know that some people seem
> to transmute pain into something else but they are a minority. I know
> that some people get this "endorphin high" thing and they want the
> pain because it leads to that. Some people find spankings don't hurt
> in the same way as other pain, and they like that.
>
> And I know I'm none of the above.
>
> I do painplay purely as submission. I don't want to be hurt, but
> there does come a time when I want him to hurt me not because I
> get anything out of it phyically - endorphins or whatever - but because
> it is submission, I want to give him that pain I hate.
>
> But I'm no masochist, and I still feel like I'm on the outer because
> I don't do this "oh lovely, painplay, we all like to be flogged" thing.
Now that is very eloquent and very like what I was trying to say about my
slave. Though she does enjoy intense stimulation, she does not like pain.
It's a purely internal definition for her but a very clear one, it's like
crossing a line drawn on the floor: either you're on one side or the other,
and this line is very, very thin. So thin that I can only recall one or two
occasions when I managed to stand ON the line. (Boy, was that fun, though.)
Similarly, she does occasionally *want* to be punished, because she wants to
submit and display her submission. That doesn't make her any more turned on
by pain she doesn't like, but you've explained that well.
louise
<kha...@enteract.com> wrote:
>Most bottoms I know are a little more like donsideb -- if the
>punishment is being done in a ritualistic setting, with the dominant
>fully expressing hir displeasure, I haven't seen many bottoms wriggle
>their butts in pleasure and delight out of a masochistic response.
>
>I'm more used to seeing tears and sorrow.
i don't doubt that most bottoms are more like donsideb. i never have
considered myself to be a "typical bottom", whatever that is. i don't
expect or require others to be like me. However i believe that my
feelings and responses are valid and shared by at least some others.
Ugol's Law, and all that.
If i am being punished by the infliction of pain, i would naturally
feel upset and miserable that i have deserved it, and i'm likely to
try to inhibit most of the bottom wiggling out of shame. The same
would be true if i were being punished by being given my favorite
meal. i wouldn't be likely to lick my lips and say, "ooh!!! Yummy!!!"
through my tears. But punishing me by spanking, flogging, and so on
would be as senseless as punishing me by feeding me a dinner of
lobster, shrimp, and crab (my favorites).
Although i would know better, inside i would likely be fighting
another battle that might take my focus off the original transgression
as well; i would be feeling ashamed and guilty and like i wasn't a
good submissive because of enjoying that aspect of the punishment when
i wasn't supposed to. And that might affect me more than a Dominant
might first expect, and in different ways. What a mess. Talk about
opening Pandora's Box... :)
Just an individual difference in response, apparently.
victorian squid
> Personally, I have not encountered such as you, except in conversation.
> It would indicate a sensitivity to the motive as the drive for the act
> -- most good Tops I know prefer the ignore path (as in, "If this is what
> they do for attention, the punishment is to withhold attention.").
Wow! That's weird!
Um, no offense, but I would think most bottoms, myself included, are
-extremely- sensitive to the motive.
I've been punished fairly infrequently. The offenses I was punished FOR,
also, had very little or nothing at all to do with attempts to get
attention, and everything to do with bad habits and a tendency to
absent-mindedness. Ignoring them wouldn't really have been an effective
way to deal with them.
The crop strokes I received as part of one punishment were pretty damn
different from the ones I receive in scene. The very fact that they were
punishment and given out of displeasure made a HUGE amount of difference.
I've endured harder than that in scene and was happy to endure them for
the sake of submission. It was the feeling of having disappointed that
came with these that made me cry.
Love on ya,
v. squid
--
"Unthinkable thoughts are thoughts we have to try"- Momus
Laura Goodwin
> 1) Negative Reinforcement:
> 2) Positive Reinforcement:
> 3) Negative Punishment:
> 4) Positive Punishment:
(etc.)
Very interesting! Thanks for a thought-provoking post.
--
"We are now re-imagining our collective dream, and this time, we all are
heroes victorious."
Laura Goodwin
http://www.cabo-one.com/lalaura
louise
<ant...@hilbert.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>louise writes
>>As a person who is physically masochistic, and by that i mean that
>>certain types of pain are literally physically pleasurable to me
>>regardless of mental interpretations, i find it astonishing that any
>>Dom/me that you know who had been exposed to the scene would be so
>>naive as to expect bare hand spanking, for example, to be a punishment
>>for someone like me.
>
>It's pretty ineffectual on at least some submissives, too.
i believe you may have intended to say, "It's pretty ineffectual on at
least some submissives who are not physically masochistic, too". If
(instead of that) you are implying that just because i am physically
masochistic i am not submissive, you are doing me and many others a
grave injustice.
However i have read your posts for some time now, and i don't think
you would intentionally say something like that. You are not a newbie
by any means and perhaps i have misunderstood you. Still i would like
to make the following statement concerning me:
My needs are primarily submissive, though i coincidently happen to be
a masochist too. i am first and foremost a submissive.
Thanks.
Anthony Hilbert
>Robert Dante wrote:
>>More than once I've seen the lightbulb go off over a Dom/me's head when
>>they realize that the punishment they usually use, like spanking, is not
>>going to change the behaviour of a masochist who truly wishes to be
>>punished.
>
>certain types of pain are literally physically pleasurable to me
>regardless of mental interpretations, i find it astonishing that any
>Dom/me that you know who had been exposed to the scene would be so
>naive as to expect bare hand spanking, for example, to be a punishment
>for someone like me.
It's pretty ineffectual on at least some submissives, too. If I were
clueless enough to try to change Joy's behaviour by threats of violence,
our relationship would be measured in days.
(If I actually =used= violence in a non-scene context, my life would be
measured in days. <g>)
--
Anthony Hilbert | Spankings should not be wasted on children.
Steven S. Davis
: It's pretty ineffectual on at least some submissives, too. If I were
: clueless enough to try to change Joy's behaviour by threats of violence,
: our relationship would be measured in days.
:
: (If I actually =used= violence in a non-scene context, my life would
: be measured in days. <g>)
One of the things I've wondered when reading people's explanations
of the effectiveness of punishment (and I'll be a bit more precise
and specify that corrections - ie a tug on a leash when a pet wanders
in the wrong diection - are not punishments; punishments, when
dealing with humans, and excluding play punishments, are either
for deterrence, expiation, or affirmation (the last two can only
be used on humans, and with some people do have positive value and
may even be necessary for some people; the former does have an
effect on either people or nonhuman pets, but I'll persist in
finding the instilling of fear to deter misconduct both a less
effective method of behavior modicfication, and one highly likely
to teach things that weren't intended)) in training animals, whether
these methods work on animals that aren't bred and socialized for
dependence on and submission to human masters. Perhaps one can train
a dog with punishment. I wonder who here would be willing to
train a tiger - with which one were going to be working - by making
it fearful ?
As for human being trained, well, for me to submit to someone
I need to not fear her (this is, BTW, different from fearing the
things that she does (the odds are, if someone doesn't already
know what I mean by that distinction, I probably can't explain
it to zir)). Succeed in making me fear you, and my submission
will end; do a really good job in making me fear you, and, well
... it's not a particularly good idea.
Mileage varies, of course.
M. Shirley Chong
<whimper> As a token remembrance of my trip, I brought back pneumonia. Now
that I find it difficult to breath and exist in a near constant semi-hypoxic
state, I'm going to see if it really *is* true that I could write about the
principles of operant conditioning in a less-than-conscious condition.
Steven S. Davis wrote:
> One of the things I've wondered when reading people's explanations
> of the effectiveness of punishment (and I'll be a bit more precise
> and specify that corrections - ie a tug on a leash when a pet wanders
> in the wrong diection - are not punishments;
I'd like to rely on the behavioural analyst's definition of punishment: any
consequence added to the environment of the trainee which has the effect of
reducing the frequency of the targeted behaviour. It has nothing to do with
how the trainer or trainee feels about the consequence; if it reduces the
frequency of the targetted behaviour, it's a punishment.
The example given actually touches on a sore point with me. I've said for many
years that if I can't describe what I am doing to a dog honestly and directly,
then I have no business doing it to the dog. If I feel the need to rely on
euphemisms in order to talk about what I'm doing, that's a damn good indicator
that I'm not acting in a manner that I find ethical.
In the sense of behavioural analysis, a tug on the leash is only a punishment
*if* it reduces the frequency of the "wandering in the wrong direction"
behaviour. An amazing amount of the time, the leash jerk demonstrably is *not*
working as intended. The owner jerks on the leash but the dog's wandering away
behaviour is not reduced--or it is even increased! Owners will swear up and
down that they are changing the dog's behaviour until they get out the pencil
and paper and keep records.
> punishments, when
> dealing with humans, and excluding play punishments, are either
> for deterrence, expiation, or affirmation (the last two can only
> be used on humans, and with some people do have positive value and
> may even be necessary for some people; the former does have an
> effect on either people or nonhuman pets, but I'll persist in
> finding the instilling of fear to deter misconduct both a less
> effective method of behavior modicfication, and one highly likely
> to teach things that weren't intended))
The last part of the parenthetical comments is the most important, IMHO.
The problem with punishment is that it causes more unpredictability in the
trainee's behaviour. Since trainees are living creatures it is not possible to
punish (reduce the frequency of) a behaviour without increasing the frequency
of some other behaviour. Trainees don't exist in a vacuum! Simply reducing the
frequency of one behaviour leaves the possibility of increasing the frequency
of some other (possibly less desirable) behaviour.
> in training animals, whether
> these methods work on animals that aren't bred and socialized for
> dependence on and submission to human masters. Perhaps one can train
> a dog with punishment. I wonder who here would be willing to
> train a tiger - with which one were going to be working - by making
> it fearful ?
Punishment does not necessarily cause the trainee to feel fearful. One can
punish (or reinforce) behaviour without having any reference to the trainee's
emotional state.
However, such emotional states are important--they affect the trainee's behaviour.
If I recall correctly, the problem with using punishment with almost any of
the cats is that they give up quite easily. As such, they are actually fairly
safe to frustrate--they just give up on the trainer and do something else. My
sketchy recall is based on the work of Keller and Marian Breeland, along with
Bob Bailey, who did a huge amount of work with many different species (over
140,000 individuals of over 130 different species). They found that, in
general, most animals need to be successful 80% of the time in order to learn
most efficiently.
I do recall Bob Bailey saying that one animal you really *don't* want to
frustrate is an ostrich. They have short attention spans, they are impatient,
and they can kick a target that is over 6 feet off the ground. Unlike the
great cats, they don't give up easily--they simply start to beat up the cause
of their frustration.
> As for human being trained, well, for me to submit to someone
> I need to not fear her (this is, BTW, different from fearing the
> things that she does (the odds are, if someone doesn't already
> know what I mean by that distinction, I probably can't explain
> it to zir)). Succeed in making me fear you, and my submission
> will end; do a really good job in making me fear you, and, well
> ... it's not a particularly good idea.
In training, I myself am trying to increase the predictability of the
trainee's behaviour. Positive reinforcement works much better towards this end
than punishment does.
Shirley
to reply, remove the trees from my e-mail address
Bob King
reading with interest.
However, it occurs to me that in the cases where I have spanked and it
worked, the spanking was a positive reinforcement - that is to say, that
the spankee was expecting and looking for that result and was reassured
when they got it. In that instance, the mode hardly matters, although
practically speaking, a spanking has advantages, as it inconveniences
the spankee less than other sorts of consequence.
NB, by "spanking" I mean just that - a swat on the bum with immediate
but little or no lingering pain, or perhaps less than that, a sensation
of impact with little or no pain. More of a dominance display than
anything. In fact, now that I think of it in those terms, those
instances were cases where I was basicly being tested by a child to
prove that I was the dominant party. Incidentally, usually the supposed
issues pretty much went away, rather than having to be dealt with on
their merits, as occured in occasions where there was substantive
conflict.
Personally, I view physical discipline as being something that is no
more prone to abuse than non-physical forms. This is what concerns me
about the "no-spanking" crowd. As it happens, the majority of abuse I
was subjected to was non-physical and was far more damaging than the
physical abuse. What concerns me is the idea that goes along with this,
that abuse isn't, if it's non-physical.
Personally, I think a good parent will be a good parent whatever tools
they use. Abuse comes from bad parenting, not from whether or not they
believe in spanking or believe in "time outs." (Although I've found
time-outs to be a really effective tool, myself, a far better response
_for me_ than delivering a swat on the bum.)
I do think that part of good parenting is figuring out what works best
with *that particular child* and doing that. Lawless has pointed out
that *for him*, physical consequences were needed. I've known other kids
that a physical response woud be the *worst possible* course. I've also
known some kids that for whom a "time out" would be the worst possible
response - abandonment triggers.
Fact is, it's not possible to mandate or legislate this stuff. It's way
too complex.
--
Regards;
Bob King ICQ#: 12880485 webc...@munchltd.com
The Dark Castle http://www.munchltd.com/firewheel/
Original BDSM/Fetish/Cartoon artwork and BDSM stories
Lawless
> Katharine Hawks:
> >Most bottoms I know are a little more like donsideb -- if the
> >punishment is being done in a ritualistic setting, with the dominant
> >fully expressing hir displeasure, I haven't seen many bottoms wriggle
> >their butts in pleasure and delight out of a masochistic response.
> >
> >I'm more used to seeing tears and sorrow.
> If i am being punished by the infliction of pain, i would naturally
> feel upset and miserable that i have deserved it, and i'm likely to
> try to inhibit most of the bottom wiggling out of shame. The same
> would be true if i were being punished by being given my favorite
> meal. i wouldn't be likely to lick my lips and say, "ooh!!! Yummy!!!"
> through my tears. But punishing me by spanking, flogging, and so on
> would be as senseless as punishing me by feeding me a dinner of
> lobster, shrimp, and crab (my favorites).
> Although i would know better, inside i would likely be fighting
> another battle that might take my focus off the original transgression
> as well; i would be feeling ashamed and guilty and like i wasn't a
> good submissive because of enjoying that aspect of the punishment when
> i wasn't supposed to. [...]
Really? Even my favorite foods, mixed with a lover / owner's displeasure,
would be horrible for me. Same with things that might normally be good,
as punishment, knowing there wasn't any joy for the other person, would
be bad in context of knowing sie was unhappy. A quick bit of fiction to
illustrate, even -without- any real D/s involved :
------------------
It'd been a kind of anniversary for us; not a formal, real one, but....
We'd decided on a particular day as when we'd stopped being best friends
who spent most of our free time together and sometimes had sex, as the
day we'd become more than that. And while we'd both been looking forward
to doing something special that evening, I.... I wasn't there - instead
I let my pals talk me into going to a clam bake up in Old Orchard Beach,
a -real- clam bake on the beach, with lobsters done up in seaweed above
the fires and all. They were enthusing about it all day at work, and I
wound up thinking, hey - Beth doesn't -like- seafood or all night parties
of that sort - why not? I didn't think of the anniversary, or even to
call....
And when I did get in, on Saturday, Beth was there at home - she'd gone
to sleep, finally, on the recliner, worried that something had happened
on the long drive back from work, because she -knew- I'd be hurrying
back for our anniversary. I don't know which was worse, knowing that
she had been worried and scared all night, or having her not talk to me
for almost a week, knowing that she was hurt and unhappy and that it was
my doing....
Finally, that Thursday, she said she wanted me to make sure I was home
straight from work the next evening : that she wanted to have her anni-
versary, even if it wasn't the same now, even if it wasn't going to be
all that enjoyable for her, as she was still sad, still hurt, still a
bit angry.
Friday... Beth was waiting when I got home, and smiled a bit, for the
first time in almost a week. And I remember her words : "Since having
your favorite foods was more important than me, than us, I've gone and
cooked them for you. Now I want to watch you eat them." Lobster tails,
crab newburg, crab cakes with remoulade sauce, and a kind of lobster
scampi.... And she didn't take a bite, just watched me with her soft
brown eyes that usually danced; the food was perfect, as was the wine
she'd gotten to accompany it, but everytime I tried to say something,
she told me to hush, that she didn't want to hear me. And every taste
was like ashes, every swallow hurt, every bite laid in my stomach like
a leaden weight.
I wound up not being able to keep the meal down - Beth came into the
bathroom to find me curled up by the sink, shaking and hugging myself
in misery. She hugged me, cleaned me up, stroked my hair and told me
that she forgave me.... We're still together, Beth and I, but three
years later, the seafood that I once loved still tastes like ashes; I
can't eat it. One small joy in life gone - but at least I still have
Beth.
------------------------- (end of fictional segment)
--
-- \_awless is : Chase Vogelsberg | SSBB Undiplomatic Corps, Tampa
-- Wormwood and wine, and the bitter taste of ashes. \ ICQ #19100721
louise
>louise wrote:
>> Katharine Hawks:
>> >Most bottoms I know are a little more like donsideb -- if the
>> >punishment is being done in a ritualistic setting, with the dominant
>> >fully expressing hir displeasure, I haven't seen many bottoms wriggle
>> >their butts in pleasure and delight out of a masochistic response.
>> >
>> >I'm more used to seeing tears and sorrow.
>
>> If i am being punished by the infliction of pain, i would naturally
>> feel upset and miserable that i have deserved it, and i'm likely to
>> try to inhibit most of the bottom wiggling out of shame. The same
>> would be true if i were being punished by being given my favorite
>> meal. i wouldn't be likely to lick my lips and say, "ooh!!! Yummy!!!"
>> through my tears. But punishing me by spanking, flogging, and so on
>> would be as senseless as punishing me by feeding me a dinner of
>> lobster, shrimp, and crab (my favorites).
>
>> Although i would know better, inside i would likely be fighting
>> another battle that might take my focus off the original transgression
>> as well; i would be feeling ashamed and guilty and like i wasn't a
>> good submissive because of enjoying that aspect of the punishment when
>> i wasn't supposed to. [...]
>
>Really? Even my favorite foods, mixed with a lover / owner's displeasure,
>would be horrible for me.
i believe that in the above quotation i mentioned that the overall
result of such a punishment would cause me to be upset, miserable,
ashamed, guilty, and tearful, emotions that are horrible to me, and
your representation quite agrees. i would rather eat worms than
lobster under the circumstances, because it would not create the inner
conflicts that i mention which i believe undermine the punishment.
Punishing via lobster is not a good punishment for me. Sure, it would
make me feel miserable. Sure it would make me vow never to do it
again. But i don't think it would work very well in the long run. It's
sure not what i would recommend to any newbie Dom, for me.
>Same with things that might normally be good,
>as punishment, knowing there wasn't any joy for the other person, would
>be bad in context of knowing sie was unhappy.
A good summary for part of what i was trying to get across, but
apparently failed to do so in this case.
>A quick bit of fiction to
>illustrate, even -without- any real D/s involved :
Very enjoyable fiction, Lawless!
In your story it seems to me that the character resolves his inner
conflict permanently, by permanently disliking seafood, so the
punishment probably did work. Some people might have resolved it the
other way, by blowing up and calling her a bitch. In my life i have
found that creation of such instant life-long dislikes of something
that was a previous favorite, are few and far between, though YMMV and
that may be true for most people.
But of even greater concern is the fact that this is where i believe
my analogy breaks down... because i believe that the physical pleasure
of eating lobster is a *want*, and that the physical pleasure that
comes from pain is a *need*, to most masochists. i do not think that i
would recommend punishment by inflicting pleasurable pain to any
newbie Dom, because even if the bottom did manage to resolve hir inner
conflict (as your character did) by eliminating it through creating an
instant life-long dislike of pain, this is likely to really mess with
a masochist's mind. i'm not even sure if the masochist could *do*
this, in dealing with a need rather than a want. i am not sure that it
is good or even possible to cause somebody to have such an aversion to
something that they genuinely need.
i'm not certain that i understand everything that there is to
understand about the psychology of punishment. Probably i understand
very little about it, because i am no expert. i do know that for me,
the most dreaded and most effective punishment is the withdrawal of
attention. And i do know that the punishment i long for is to
experience considerable, deliberately inflicted pain as an expiatory
(is that the word?) experience. i have noticed that my behavior is
considerably improved after withdrawal of attention (despite the fact
i despise this punishment), and is only mildly improved after being
punished by pain. Wish i could say otherwise. :)
Wow! what an interesting post. Where's Shirley when we need her? LOL
i'm sure no expert on punishment and behavior, though due to the level
of masochism that i am blessed/cursed with, i feel i can contribute a
little from my own observations of what works on me.
Nicole Cloonan
: But of even greater concern is the fact that this is where i believe
: my analogy breaks down... because i believe that the physical pleasure
: of eating lobster is a *want*, and that the physical pleasure that
: comes from pain is a *need*, to most masochists.
I may just be using a different definition here, but this
doesn't reflect my experience at all.
When I think of needs, I think of things that one *must
absolutely always* have in order to survive. Without
satisfying these needs, one would either kill hirself or
die. A want is a desire for something, and it may well
be a very strong desire which would mean that they would
always be extremely unhappy without, but it is not a need.
Using the above definition, for how many of you is WIITWD
a *need* that you absolutely must have satisfied in order
to continue living? How many people here would rather die
than face the rest of their lives without the possibility
of ever kinking again?
Nicole.
--
SSB Diplomatic Corps: Brisbane, Australia
SSB Hompage: http://www.phszx81.demon.co.uk/ssb/
Email: nic...@uq.net.au
louise
>louise wrote, among other things:
>
>: But of even greater concern is the fact that this is where i believe
>: my analogy breaks down... because i believe that the physical pleasure
>: of eating lobster is a *want*, and that the physical pleasure that
>: comes from pain is a *need*, to most masochists.
>
>I may just be using a different definition here, but this
>doesn't reflect my experience at all.
>
>When I think of needs, I think of things that one *must
>absolutely always* have in order to survive.
i used to define needs this way also, until recently. As a direct
result of a very lengthy thread that i began on a mailing list in
early January, i now feel that needs are what is required to maintain
an acceptable level of physical, intellectual, or emotional health.
But what does ssbb think? What is the difference between a want and a
need?
Sure, we need oxygen and water. And some things are clearly wants and
are not needed, as well. But what about the gray area? any words of
wisdom on that? It is helpful to a submissive to know what the
differences are between wants and needs so that she can communicate
her needs effectively, without a lot of do-me sub, "I want" behavior.
i have heard it expressed that to eat is a need, but to eat Chinese,
or Italian, or French cuisine is a want. i wonder how this translates
to assessing whether other things are needs or wants. For example,
sexual pleasures, or masochistic pleasures, or submissive pleasures
can be denied without causing death to the person; yet i feel that
these are needs, but i do not know why i feel this way. i especially
feel that submission is a need, because the mental state that i enter
when denied it for long periods is not healthy and is badly
destructive to me.
One reason that i would like to understand the difference
between needs and wants, is that i was taught by my first Master that
it is my responsibility to clearly communicate my needs to One i
serve. However i have also been taught (not by him) that "I want",
Do-me sub, type of behavior is simply not acceptable. So a submissive
such as me may sit on the razor's edge, a solemn responsibility on one
side, and intolerable behavior on the other side. Of course the
catch-22 is that "I want" to know the difference, even thought the
motivation is so that i can please and serve.
Is masochism a need? Is submission a need? It has been said (in the
previous discussion to which i referred above) that needs are
essential to one's well-being, as a human being on the emotional,
spiritual, psychological and mental levels of life, as opposed to a
perk; if this definition is taken, then yes, i would say that for me,
these are needs.
Katharine Hawks
>louise wrote, among other things:
>
>: But of even greater concern is the fact that this is where i believe
>: my analogy breaks down... because i believe that the physical pleasure
>: of eating lobster is a *want*, and that the physical pleasure that
>: comes from pain is a *need*, to most masochists.
>
>I may just be using a different definition here, but this
>doesn't reflect my experience at all.
>
>When I think of needs, I think of things that one *must
>absolutely always* have in order to survive. Without
>satisfying these needs, one would either kill hirself or
>die. A want is a desire for something, and it may well
>be a very strong desire which would mean that they would
>always be extremely unhappy without, but it is not a need.
For me, that definition of need would prove too narrow. I accept that
we have common needs -- such as nutrition, shelter, community and so
on. I also accept that many of us have our own unique needs, without
which we can't be fulfilled.
SM and DS are somewhere on the 'need' continuum for me. I could
certainly live without either -- it wouldn't kill me. But it would
make me less of a person. I would be less engaged with life, less
fulfilled, and less expressive. To me -- that's a kind of psychic
death.
I have lots of DS and SM wants, too. But I can do BDSM without these
things. For example, when I do BDSM I prefer to play with pain.
That's a want. But I can work around it if needed. I also want to
play with blood -- piercing, cutting, opening skin. I can live
without it, but I'd really rather not, thankyouverymuch.
>Using the above definition, for how many of you is WIITWD
>a *need* that you absolutely must have satisfied in order
>to continue living? How many people here would rather die
>than face the rest of their lives without the possibility
>of ever kinking again?
I wouldn't choose death over kink, of course. Most of the time, if we
have to choose, we have to make other choices. About relationships
and lovers, children, family, jobs and so on.
Sockermom9
>But what does ssbb think? What is the difference between a want and a
>need?
I used to run a recovery group based on the principles of RET--Rational-Emotive
Therapy. We talked about this a lot. The definition you discuss works just
fine--no one is going to die from lack of sex, kinky or otherwise.
>For example,
>sexual pleasures, or masochistic pleasures, or submissive pleasures
>can be denied without causing death to the person; yet i feel that
>these are needs, but i do not know why i feel this way.
You might try phrasing it differently. In a sexual/romantic relationship, the
goal isn't just survival, so the old "food, water, air" definition of needs
won't get the job done. Your goal, presumably, is your mutual erotic pleasure.
In order to achieve that, you will have other needs, much like you'll need
certain things in order to make a souffle.
Communicating how you feel about things, both good and bad, is important. A
master that sees this as "do-me" behavior is going to find himself operating in
the dark and screwing up a lot.
Ferinstance, by now the whole freaking planet knows how much I "like" clamps.
If my top wishes to watch a screaming twenty-minute orgasm of agony, a clamp on
my clit is darn close to a need. I could communicate this by telling him,
"Hey, dude! Time to put on that clamp!" Or I could tell him, while not in
scene-space, that *my* particular kink includes this. Kinda like telling
someone you're loaning a car to that it tends to veer to the right on hard
braking, and that the cd-player eats cd's if you go over railroad tracks.
Lynn
New to the world of submission? Check out http://members.aol.com/oldrope/ for
some thoughts for newcomers from those who've been there and decided to stick
around.
Steven S. Davis
: When I think of needs, I think of things that one *must
: absolutely always* have in order to survive. Without
: satisfying these needs, one would either kill hirself or
: die. A want is a desire for something, and it may well
: be a very strong desire which would mean that they would
: always be extremely unhappy without, but it is not a need.
:
: Using the above definition, for how many of you is WIITWD
: a *need* that you absolutely must have satisfied in order
: to continue living? How many people here would rather die
: than face the rest of their lives without the possibility
: of ever kinking again?
As some people have had the misfortune to discover, I'll prattle
on at great length sometimes about need (requirements when my
aggravated (and aggravating) alliteration addiction is in advanced
stages), wants, wishes, and will and how they relate to wiitwd and
to d&s in particular. The exact definitions[*] vary anytime someone
starts me up, but one reasonably consistent part of my definitions
is that needs/requirements are those things without which the
person cannot be happy and healthy. Which, for some people, can
include wiitwd, and even some very specific kinds of wiitwd.
* - To be brief (yes, really): needs must be addressed, and it's
the responsibility of the dominant to see that they are;
wants are strong desires the lack of fulfillment of which
will diminish one's happiness but which one can do w/o and
still be happy and healthy; wishes are things which would be
fun but the lack of which isn't diminishing; will, is, for
a submissive, irrelevant, so while zir wishes, wants, and
requirements all matter (though only the last needs to be
fulfilled, and how they are fulfilled is the dominant's
business), zir will does not. Personal definitions, mileage
may vary, etc.
Arrow Blue
>zznc...@uq.net.au (Nicole Cloonan) wrote:
>>I may just be using a different definition here, but this
>>doesn't reflect my experience at all.
>>
>>When I think of needs, I think of things that one *must
>>absolutely always* have in order to survive
>
>The usual example is Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
> 1. Physiological (starving, freezing)
> 2. Security and safety (physical risk, freedom risk)
> 3. Love & belonging (social, tribal)
> 4. Esteem or recognition
> 5. Self fulfillment
> 6. Curiosity and the need to understand
>The idea being that once all the needs at a lower number are
>satisfied, the needs at the next number become important. For
>instance, if you can't get enough food to go on living, wearing a
>seat belt seems much less important.
> The key thing is that the items on the list are needs, but there
>are different levels of needs.
I think what louise was talking about was more on the line of needs vs
preferences, not how important the need is.
To satisfy my sexual needs, I ~need~ to have bondage in there
someplace, because I have a fetish, vs my preference for stocks and
ropes as opposed to metal shackles.
But that's an interesting idea anyway.
Arrow
Katharine Hawks
wrote:
<snippity-doo-da>
> * - To be brief (yes, really): needs must be addressed, and it's
> the responsibility of the dominant to see that they are;
... <more snippage>...
Why is that the responsibility of a dominant? I'd think that's a
responsibility to self, regardless of DS orientation (or lack
thereof).
louise
<kha...@enteract.com> wrote:
>On 4 Feb 1999 16:25:38 GMT, s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis)
>wrote:
>
><snippity-doo-da>
>
>> * - To be brief (yes, really): needs must be addressed, and it's
>> the responsibility of the dominant to see that they are;
>
>... <more snippage>...
>
>Why is that the responsibility of a dominant? I'd think that's a
>responsibility to self, regardless of DS orientation (or lack
>thereof).
i agree, Katharine. When a submissive's needs are not being met, i
agree that it is her responsibility to communicate that; and if it is
agreed that they cannot be met in that relationship, i think it is her
responsibility to ask for release or end the relationship.
victorian squid
Cloonan) wrote:
> Using the above definition, for how many of you is WIITWD
> a *need* that you absolutely must have satisfied in order
> to continue living? How many people here would rather die
> than face the rest of their lives without the possibility
> of ever kinking again?
No, I wouldn't die, and most likely wouldn't kill myself either. But it
wouldn't be much of a life. I did get along without it for a long time
tho, so I think I probably could manage it. Then again, I have a long life
ahead of me, and that's a bleak prospect indeed. Glad I won't have to face
it any time soon.
Now, if you had said "without the possibility of ever hearing or making
any music again", the answer would be different. I probably would end up
killing myself eventually. So I guess that's a need. The soul needs food
and water too, and that's where I get mine.
Funny thing, as these passions are both deep in the core of me, and I do
sometimes wonder which is the more powerful. Considering this has given me
the answer. Thanks for asking such a thought provoking question.
BLDRNRpdx
I just read somewhere recently (no, of course I don't remember who or where.
that would be too easy) that we need four hugs a day to exist, eight hugs to be
remotely healthy, and twelve to grow.
Well, I know for a fact that a person can go for weeks and months on end
without getting *any* hugs and still survive.
Yes, I know the "is survival enough" argument has been done to death here.
For me, that's not enough. Existence is not enough. I spent too much of my
life simply existing. I need a reason. Twelve hugs sounds like a pretty good
start.
BDSM is another reason. For me, that's a *need*. It adds a meaning to my
life. It adds a joy I cannot do without. Without BDSM, I'd simply be
existing.
Bladerunner
SSB-b Dip. Corps: Portland, OR - Westside
I'm not going to die wondering.
--Colette
Binder
> When I think of needs, I think of things that one *must
> satisfying these needs, one would either kill hirself or
> die. A want is a desire for something, and it may well
> be a very strong desire which would mean that they would
> always be extremely unhappy without, but it is not a need.
Perhaps a minor niggle... there are needs, and then there are Needs. Needs
are those things like food, air, and water without which the organism dies
of natural causes. In the needs category are affection, attention, social
intercourse, recognition, light, reliable sleep, and other experiences that
allow the organism to flourish, or in the absence of, may cause insanity.
(Of course there are exceptions!) Certainly humans can survive without
those needs, but at what cost to their humanity? Yes, it is true that there
are those that choose to go without, and still manage to grow in
deprivation, but IMO, they are the exceptions.
and then there are wants.
> Using the above definition, for how many of you is WIITWD
> a *need* that you absolutely must have satisfied in order
> to continue living? How many people here would rather die
> than face the rest of their lives without the possibility
> of ever kinking again?
Very few of us would choose to die for any "desire." OTOH, many of us would
be seriously reduced in our humanity to go without WIITWD, which brings us
back to individuals...
Binder
--
SSB-B Diplomatic Corps: Marin County, CA
to reply, remove the idjit
Binder
>
> On 4 Feb 1999 16:25:38 GMT, s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis)
> wrote:
>
> <snippity-doo-da>
>
> > * - To be brief (yes, really): needs must be addressed, and it's
> > the responsibility of the dominant to see that they are;
>
> ... <more snippage>...
>
> Why is that the responsibility of a dominant? I'd think that's a
> responsibility to self, regardless of DS orientation (or lack
> thereof).
Do I smell a general distinction here, between basic concepts, or am I just
whistling in the dark?
It seems to me that there two broad thought trends among us: those that
feel the dominant has all the responsibility, and those that believe in
mutual responsibility for Topsy and turvey.
Maybe it's the absence of an inoocent little lambikin in my immediate
vicinty that leads me down these dark and twisted byways, but I can't
recall thinking that particular thought until lately: that there are those
distinctly different attitudes on both sides, and that it's little
discussed. Or is it just that I've gotten whacked up side the head often
enough to finally see the obvious?
louise
>It seems to me that there two broad thought trends among us: those that
>feel the dominant has all the responsibility, and those that believe in
>mutual responsibility for Topsy and turvey.
Personally i hadn't noticed this dichotomy, though that doesn't mean
it's not there. :)
If it's helpful at all, as some of you know my M/s preferences and
practices are considered by some around here to be pretty much way out
there as far as being extreme. However, even so, it has always been
presented to me as fundamental that i had the responsibility to
communicate my needs to a Dominant that i serve. This is just one of a
slave's responsibilities as i have been taught. The division of
responsibilities in M/s has differed from that in my vanilla
relationships.
Lacenlthrs
lou...@links.magenta.com (louise) pondered:
>Is masochism a need? Is submission a need? It has been said (in the
>previous discussion to which i referred above) that needs are
>essential to one's well-being, as a human being on the emotional,
>spiritual, psychological and mental levels of life, as opposed to a
>perk; if this definition is taken, then yes, i would say that for me,
>these are needs.
I think that masochism (or sadism or submission or dominance) CAN very well be
a need. Fulfilling it can be essential to one's well-being, emotionally,
spiritually, even physically. Going back to the thread on "going vanilla" for a
moment, I chose that path for a long while before I came to my senses and
realized how miserable I was trying to live without BDSM. We had great vanilla
sex in the meantime, for a while, but even that dwindled as that other,
apparently essential, part of me withered. The same was true of my beloved,
I've learned through many late-night conversations. So I would conclude that
BDSM, for us, is a need.
How we express that need, however, gets more into the "wants" area. I supremely
enjoy a good flogging, while he prefers an openhanded spanking. It still gets
me hot and sends me flying, so my need is being fulfilled even if the way I
want it isn't (well, not quite, anyway). We enjoy different kinds of bondage,
too. Though I'm, um, coming over to his way of thinking (I just spent an
afternoon at the movies in a wonderful Japanese breast harness--wait, I think I
remember the title!). Again, the "how" is a want, but the sensation, the
submission, is the need.
I used to think it was ALL a want and nothing more (icing on my libidinous
cake), but after spending the last several years in deepening "disconnection"
because I wasn't being who I really was, I'm pretty sure I was fooling myself.
It's not the same as starving or freezing to death, by any means, but I believe
emotional happiness is just as essential to our existence.
KarenJ
Katharine Hawks
>>It seems to me that there two broad thought trends among us: those that
>>feel the dominant has all the responsibility, and those that believe in
>>mutual responsibility for Topsy and turvey.
This issue is one of my "crusades" <g>.
Submission is not about giving up responsibility. Submission is about
giving up control. Those two things may feel like the same thing, but
they are not. A person can give up control while maintaining hir
responsibility to self.
If one wants to submit in order to relieve oneself of life's various
responsibilities, they are seeking dysfunction. They are not seeking
a dominant, they are seeking someone to co-sign their bullshit (a
phrase borrowed from a very smart friend).
Now, I have no problem with the notion of suspending responsibility
for the duration of a scene -- that's called a *vacation* <grin> and
most of us can use one every now and then.
I do have a problem with people who use submission as a way to
transfer their responsibilities to self onto a dominant. That, I
think is unacceptable in most versions of D/s I've run across.
Now, a dominant can still choose to take on responsibility for hir
submissive's happiness (for example). I do that, myself. But because
I've chosen to make this my responsibility doesn't mean it's stopped
being hir responsibility, either. Responsibilities can be held by
multiple people at the same time.
On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 19:13:36 GMT, lou...@links.magenta.com (louise)
wrote:
>Personally i hadn't noticed this dichotomy, though that doesn't mean
>it's not there. :)
>
>If it's helpful at all, as some of you know my M/s preferences and
>practices are considered by some around here to be pretty much way out
>there as far as being extreme. However, even so, it has always been
>presented to me as fundamental that i had the responsibility to
>communicate my needs to a Dominant that i serve. This is just one of a
>slave's responsibilities as i have been taught. The division of
>responsibilities in M/s has differed from that in my vanilla
>relationships.
I agree that a slave's responsibilities may *shift* in a responsible
DS relationship. For example, as a slave, you may assume more
responsibility for the day-to-day operations of your dominant's life;
while your dominant assumes more responsibilities for the overall
progress of your spiritual life (just an example). In this example,
neither case has given up responsibility to each other and life in
general; it may just be organized a little differently.
Lawless
> Punishing via lobster is not a good punishment for me. Sure, it would
> make me feel miserable. Sure it would make me vow never to do it
> again. But i don't think it would work very well in the long run. It's
> sure not what i would recommend to any newbie Dom, for me.
Lots of things that some of us do aren't something "we" (as a group)
would recommend to a novice top. *g*
> In your story it seems to me that the character resolves his inner
> conflict permanently, by permanently disliking seafood, so the
> punishment probably did work. Some people might have resolved it the
> other way, by blowing up and calling her a bitch. In my life i have
> found that creation of such instant life-long dislikes of something
> that was a previous favorite, are few and far between, though YMMV and
> that may be true for most people.
I think that the long term aversion to seafood is more an unwanted and
unintentional side effect : the "sin" committed wasn't eatting lobster,
it was forgetting the lover and the anniversary, but because of the
specifics of the transgression, the punishment might seem apropos. If
the inconsiderate behavior had continued, the punishment would have been
a failure despite the acquired dislike of the food. (This is one of
those possible undesired effects of punishment that Shirley and others
have mentioned.)
Further, it's not a binary thing - some might blow up and call the
other a bitch, myself (being the shallow sort I am) I'd've found the
lobster and crab horrible, but would've gotten over it in a couple
weeks, with a likely positive side effect that I'd often remember and
reflect on the incident when having seafood. This would, I expect,
make it less likely that I'd drift back into inconsiderate behavior
again. If I were the sort to do such things in the first place, of
course.
With something like that bit of fiction, the actual "punishment" would
not, imo, be the actual delicacies involved : it'd be the lover's dis-
pleasure, and the knowledge that it -should- have, would have, other-
wise been a pleasurable experience / occasion for us both.
With a punishment via pain[1], again, the real hell of it would be the
knowledge that my partner was upset, disappointed, and not taking the
pleasure she otherwise would be in having me suffer for her. Then
again, I've been told that I'm a strange breed of masochist, because
while I want (and in some sense, "need") the pain, I generally don't
-like- or enjoy the pain : I wouldn't have your potential conflict
between liking the caning even as I was miserable with the sense of
having failed my dominant.
> [...] i do not think that i would recommend punishment by inflicting
> pleasurable pain to any newbie Dom, because even if the bottom did
> manage to resolve hir inner conflict (as your character did) by
> eliminating it through creating an instant life-long dislike of pain,
> this is likely to really mess with a masochist's mind. [...] i am not
> sure that it is good or even possible to cause somebody to have such
> an aversion to something that they genuinely need.
This goes back to those unintentional and undesirable side effects once
more : if the submissive (one-time masochist or not) winds up associating
the sensation of pain / pain play with the displeasure they'd caused, it
might well make them unsuitable as partner for dominant who enjoys pain
play. (As well as other unpleasant posibilities : especially if the one
being punished doesn't believe they -deserved- the punishment, a lot of
resentment can start to accumulate, as it can even in vanilla relations
where even without any sense of punishment, one person begins to resent
being blamed / rebuffed for things they didn't do.)
> [...] i do know that for me, the most dreaded and most effective
> punishment is the withdrawal of attention. [...]
A few years back, in a LDR, I was punished in such a manner : my owner
decreed that we were to be incommunicado for a time - no phone calls,
no email, no saying 'hi' via IRC while one or the other of us was at
work; I think it was one of the worst punishments I've ever known,
largely because while normally I'd just shrug off a week of being out
of touch (for instance, if my partner were on a camping trip), in this
case I knew she was suffering because of the punishment as well - my
showing up on irc while she was on a slow night shift at work helped
make her job less boring and unpleasant. Which perhaps goes back to
an adage about how a punishment should be unpleasant for -both- parties
to be most effective.
[1] I don't -like- punishment, and I don't care for playing with
punishment dynamics. That said, I don't have a problem with a
consensual "real" punishment or even the aware and informed venting
of anger via BDSM, largely because of the sense of atonement and
emotional catharsis that can be reached, even if the punishment has
no other positive aspects.
Steven S. Davis
: On 4 Feb 1999 16:25:38 GMT, s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis)
: wrote:
:
: <snippity-doo-da>
:
: > * - To be brief (yes, really): needs must be addressed, and it's
: > the responsibility of the dominant to see that they are;
:
: ... <more snippage>...
:
: Why is that the responsibility of a dominant? I'd think that's a
: responsibility to self, regardless of DS orientation (or lack
: thereof).
It'd be more accurate to say it's the responsibility of the
dominant, because the definitions referred to a situation
in which a relationship exists (no, that wasn't explicitly
stated; see what brevity does ?), and one in which the will
of the submissive no longer matters, at least as regards that
relationship. If the submissive can't demand or require
anything of the dominant and the dominant is in charge of
the submissive, then the submissive obviously can't be
responsible for the addressing of zir needs.
Or, to use the short form: because the dominant's in
charge, and the one in charge is the one responsible for
seeing that everyone's needs are met. Two people can
of course share responsibility for something, but not
if only one of them is in charge.
Of course, there's a huge range of d&s relationships, and
the amount of control taken and exercised by the dominant
will vary greatly, and when the dominant doesn't exercise
the degree of control being considered, zir responsibility
will be much less. But if zie wants the control, zie
gets the responsibility along with it. Yes, certainly,
the submissive has responsibilities also (for example the
responsibility to provide the most complete and accurate
information zie can to the dominant) but not the
responsibility for seeing that each party's needs are met.
Naturally, before the relationship all the responsibility
was the submissive's, and the submissive is responsible
for what relationships ie enters and under what terms,
and would have been responsible for knowing the dominant
(within plausible limits; no human being can ever know
another with complete certainty) and zir needs, preferences,
capabilities, and limits, and for being certain that the
dominant knew the submissive and the needs, preferences,
capabilities, and limits of the submissive. If the submissive
errs and enters in a relationship which zie should not have
entered into, then, assuming no deceit on the part of the
dominant, if the relationship doesn't work than zie certainly
most bear responsibility for zir error and the bad that comes
of it. But if no such error was made, then once entering into
a relationship which involves the surrender of control to another
(for other than specified periods) the responsibility for having
one's needs met goes to the one with the control.
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
louise
>some might blow up and call the
>other a bitch, myself (being the shallow sort I am) I'd've found the
>lobster and crab horrible, but would've gotten over it in a couple
>weeks, with a likely positive side effect that I'd often remember and
>reflect on the incident when having seafood.
LOL, and as for me, i think that for a while i'll probably remember
and reflect on this post when having lobster.... (grin)
louise