BDSM as therapy

Thank you all for your contribution to this thread. (I am sorry for the delay in answering but I was away...)

It's pretty glaringly obvious that this guy you quoted (where are your own opinions on these matters, DS? why always turning to some perceived authority on the matter?) does not struggle with mental illness, and by extension, neither do you, DS, otherwise you'd probably know better.

The article does not voice my opinions, but the author's opinions. I merely translated it.

I am neither a Domme, nor a therapist. I found the article extremely interesting, and in fact I gave it as a gift to my daughter who is doing her thesis for a degree in Psychology. She said she will use it, as it is the most refreshing thing she has read in all four years of College. Her words, not mine. But she is still young, only 21, maybe she does not know what she is talking about...

BDSM can be theraputic, but it shouldn't be practiced as therapy. Two very different concepts.

This is what the article says too.

And what happens if a dominant person is in a relationship with a sub who suddenly becomes sick? Should dominants attempt to cure the sub on their own? How do you cure a psychosis in D/s?

It is perfectly clear that the dominant person does not have to do that himself or herself. Therapy will be carried out with medicine given by a doctor who is more specialized than the dominant, to whom the dominant will send the sub whether he/she likes it or not.

Um... yes, they have. There's been a great deal of work on things like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which aims to standardise diagnosis of mental health conditions.

Does it standardize health or illness?

There's also the WHO's ICD, now in its tenth edition, which covers both mental and physical health.

Does it standardize health or illness?

The argument of the article, as far as I see it, is that we pay attention to illness and not to health. And we do not understand that we are dealing with less strength than the strength we could have, each individual as an individual. We are looking for diseases, when we should be looking at the optimal self we could be.

True of some of us (me included) but certainly not all. Athletes pay a lot of attention to positive measures of health as well as negative ones - how much they can lift, how quickly they can run a mile, etc etc.

Do they measure health or strength? You see that if you start thinking logically, you come back to the argument.

Somewhere along the way we seem to have fallen into the assumption that "strength" is a unidimensional attribute: that the "strength" that makes DomlyDom McMasterful a good dom is the same "strength" that a bipolar person needs to stabilise their mental state, or that an autistic person needs to become better at interpreting other people's emotions.

I am sure that no one here said things like that. I would have objected very seriously.

We're also assuming that a person who has this "strength" themselves is capable of communicating it to others.

Again, I think a case has been made that we are discussing some situations here that are not a run-of-the-mill thing.

I engage in BDSM with my lovers. I take an interest in psychology, but I haven't put myself through the training required to be a competent professional counsellor, so I don't consider that I have the skills required to practice as a therapist. I don't think most other PYLs do either, even if they've read a shelfload of pop-psych books.

Indeed, no Dom/Domme would attempt to cure a serious mental illness, such as a psychosis, as mentioned already in the article. That is work for a therapist.

But would a Dom/Domme strive to strengthen the sub, as part of his/her "job description"?

If not, what does a Dom/Domme do when he/she engages in D/s?

Aristotle also believed that women had fewer teeth than men and that flies arose spontaneously from spoiled meat.

It is true that he was mistaken in that. He got the other part right, though. Politicians do not have regular jobs, even today.

Where the hell does DomlyDom get the idea that busy people don't want to be doms? Being time-poor is often driven more by economic circumstances than by any psychological preference.

I think - and please correct me if I am wrong - that D/s needs some serious time investment. If one cannot spare the time, one cannot engage in D/s. One can do vanilla/kink though. Or S/M. Why not? Every Friday night for example...<smiles>

I'm glad to see this said, but it runs directly contrary to the opening of this essay: "If someone needs therapy, well they should go to a therapist. Right? Wrong."

It depends on why you go to a therapist. If you go to a therapist in order to discover your inner strength, you will most likely end up... like Woody Allen. Lol.

...um, we are aware that phobias and anxiety can be crippling, right? And that "frigidity" (sic) can cause immense difficulties in a relationship?

Of course. Truly crippling and then some... I must admit though that I no longer suffer from frigidity or anxiety and the drinking problem is under control. I still have a thing with spiders though, but I wanted to keep that, because it reminds me of my mother...
 
im not sure what to say to this... but that it depends on who u ask as shown above and below this post...
 
Last edited:
I think - and please correct me if I am wrong - that D/s needs some serious time investment. If one cannot spare the time, one cannot engage in D/s. One can do vanilla/kink though. Or S/M. Why not? Every Friday night for example...<smiles>



Yes, inferior vanillas can cram their uncomplicated rutting into 5 minutes together and lead happy stupid inferior lives - WE M/s D/s people need TIME to pick the navel lint out and get Aristotelian.

OK, why?

I assert, to put this shoe back on the other foot, that you are doing D/s wrong if your exchanges have to get much more complex than "yes Mistress." A relationship of quality between peers takes more than you seem to think.

When I do D/s the subs are given the essays to write and I am given clean floors, expensive shoes, and reservations where I want them.
 
The article does not voice my opinions, but the author's opinions. I merely translated it.

I am neither a Domme, nor a therapist. I found the article extremely interesting, and in fact I gave it as a gift to my daughter who is doing her thesis for a degree in Psychology. She said she will use it, as it is the most refreshing thing she has read in all four years of College. Her words, not mine. But she is still young, only 21, maybe she does not know what she is talking about...

A lot of shrinks aren't worth shit no matter how much book-learnins they've had.

Indeed, no Dom/Domme would attempt to cure a serious mental illness, such as a psychosis, as mentioned already in the article. That is work for a therapist.

Um....

"I have refrained from discussing less important mental illnesses, according to their classification, such as phobias, anxiety, frigidity etc (that would be like stealing food from a baby's mouth). In the context of a D/s relationship, a phobia could be cured within minutes, provided that the dominant person wanted it. But the dominant might prefer a less impressive but more effective process, more encompassing, as is the strengthening of the sub's ego. On the subject of frigidity, I will only say that specialists would have a lot to learn from the average BDSMer."

Yeah no. Unless you've got a completely made-up definition of "serious mental illness" that no one but yourself and the quoted actually uses.

But would a Dom/Domme strive to strengthen the sub, as part of his/her "job description"?

No, and you can stop asking this question because we've all already told you that it's an irrelevant generalization that you're trying to make because it makes you wet.

If not, what does a Dom/Domme do when he/she engages in D/s?
I dunno, maybe start a thread and actually ask this question instead of couching it in tiresome pontifications that reference no reality but their own. Here's a tip, though: actually listen to what the d-types tell you instead of writing them off as practicing not-D/s because it doesn't fit your extremely narrow and rather arbitrary view of what kink should be.
 
The DSM does indeed standardise health to a certain cautious extent. In fact the medical profession points out that "health" is somewhat subjective-- a concept that unfortunately many medical practitioners forget.

But would a Dom/Domme strive to strengthen the sub, as part of his/her "job description"?
Sure, if that particular Dominant person considers that part of their job description.
If not, what does a Dom/Domme do when he/she engages in D/s?
Have a sense of control over circumstances. Get their own needs met, whatever form that takes.
 
Devil's advocacy -

Someone gives an order, someone carries it out - D/s achieved. D/s is not about wondering if there is therapeutic value, wondering if you are moving toward spiritual enlightenment, horrible poetry or sparkling vampires. All that other stuff is extraneous to it and optional as a condiment if that's your thing - but IT is not D/s. D/s is not complicated - it is the simplest form of human interaction there is. It's Simon Says. The fact that we put it into relationship context with a partner makes it complex, because partnership is freaking complex.
 
But would a Dom/Domme strive to strengthen the sub, as part of his/her "job description"?

If not, what does a Dom/Domme do when he/she engages in D/s?

It is generally true that a Dom/Domme seeks sexual gratification when engaging in D/s. Given the variety of sexual desires and fetishes, that can take all kinds of forms.
 
In my opinion, that is a very dangerous, and arrogant attitude to hold. It's also such a brief mention in the writing, that I'm unsure what exactly the author means by the statement.

A very quiet statement but an important one
 
Thank you all for your contribution to this thread. (I am sorry for the delay in answering but I was away...)

Do they measure health or strength? You see that if you start thinking logically, you come back to the argument.

I think - and please correct me if I am wrong - that D/s needs some serious time investment. If one cannot spare the time, one cannot engage in D/s. One can do vanilla/kink though. Or S/M. Why not? Every Friday night for example...<smiles>

Do you really not see how condescending you come off?
 
Re. DSM and ICD:
Does it standardize health or illness?

Context: I was responding to the statement that "modern medicine has not taken very seriously the task of coming up with an inherently consistent and general definition of sickness and health". I mentioned those mostly in connection with the "sickness" part of the statement.

If you want material specifically about defining health, then you could look at things like the ICF, which iterates a whole bunch of capabilities associated with different aspects of health, e.g.:

b755 Involuntary movement reaction functions: Functions of involuntary contractions of large muscles or the whole body induced by body position, balance and threatening stimuli. Inclusions: functions of postural reactions, righting reactions, body adjustment reactions, balance reactions, supporting reactions, defensive reactions Exclusion: motor reflex functions (b750)

d160 Focusing attention: Intentionally focusing on specific stimuli, such as by filtering out distracting noises.

d163 Thinking: Formulating and manipulating ideas, concepts, and images, whether goal-oriented or not, either alone or with others, such as creating fiction, proving a theorem, playing with ideas, brainstorming, meditating, pondering, speculating, or reflecting. Exclusions: solving problems (d175); making decisions (d177)

Re. athletes:
Do they measure health or strength? You see that if you start thinking logically, you come back to the argument.

They measure either or both, depending on the type of athlete. When my friend describes the difficulty grading of a rockface she can climb, that's hardly just "absence of illness"; it's a positive capability.

Re. assumption that "strength" is a unidimensional attribute:
I am sure that no one here said things like that. I would have objected very seriously.

That's the problem: the article never explicitly says that, but it assumes it.

As far as I can tell, its argument is: doms have "strength", therefore they are capable of teaching "strength" to others, and "strength" is what submissives need to deal with mental illness. But I don't see that it makes a case for why we should think those are the same type of "strength".

Here is a set of photos of high-performance athletes. Every one of them is "strong" and "healthy" in certain ways - optimised to their particular sport - but some of those strengths are opposed to one another; there's no body type that works well for high-jumping and for powerlifting.

Indeed, no Dom/Domme would attempt to cure a serious mental illness, such as a psychosis, as mentioned already in the article. That is work for a therapist.

I'm glad the article acknowledges that much. But it then immediately goes on to state that "less important illness", including phobias, can be cured by a Dom within minutes. This is reckless and irresponsible advice.

But would a Dom/Domme strive to strengthen the sub, as part of his/her "job description"?

That depends on the individuals involved and what they're seeking from the relationship.

Some people have relationships where they take some responsibility for one another's personal growth, be that in a D/S framework or something more conventional. Others have relationships based on the fact that they enjoy one another's company and both like to play the same way. Neither option is wrong, neither option is mandatory.

Re. the statement that "Does this mean that ignorant people are excluded from creating D/s relationships? Certainly yes. Lazy people? Also yes. Hmm... how about those who have so many other personal obligations, which do not allow them to make the effort? Well, what can you do? Aristotle excluded from politics people who worked for a living, for the exact same reason. Besides, all those people usually prefer vanilla/kinky behaviors anyway, so they will be fine with that. "

I think - and please correct me if I am wrong - that D/s needs some serious time investment. If one cannot spare the time, one cannot engage in D/s. One can do vanilla/kink though. Or S/M. Why not? Every Friday night for example...<smiles>

Possibly true; depending on how you define D/S it might be feasible to say that time-poor people won't be able to do it.

But what the essay claimed was that they don't WANT to do it - "those people usually prefer vanilla/kinky behaviors anyway". That's where we get to "citation needed".
 
I am almost positive that the author did not mean to imply that non-D/s BDSM is "vanilla kink" and therefore inferior to Twu Dominance.

But I'm not quite positive. After all, he's a Real Master, right? Everything he does, he does purposefully. He doesn't make mistakes.

Wanna buy a bridge? I got one right here in my coat pocket.
 
When I do D/s the subs are given the essays to write and I am given clean floors, expensive shoes, and reservations where I want them.

Yes, and those things take time (essays and floors, lol). We are in complete agreement then.

Yeah no. Unless you've got a completely made-up definition of "serious mental illness" that no one but yourself and the quoted actually uses.

DSM is quite explicit about what serious mental illness is. When in doubt, one can always consult that manual.

No, and you can stop asking this question because we've all already told you that it's an irrelevant generalization that you're trying to make because it makes you wet.

Some people in this particular forum seem to think it is an irrelevant generalization. One thinks it makes me wet. If I may be allowed, I consider these two views erroneous. As for the second one, I am certain and I even vouch for it, since we are talking of my personal wetness, lol. I am easy, but not THAT easy...

I dunno, maybe start a thread and actually ask this question instead of couching it in tiresome pontifications that reference no reality but their own. Here's a tip, though: actually listen to what the d-types tell you instead of writing them off as practicing not-D/s because it doesn't fit your extremely narrow and rather arbitrary view of what kink should be.

I do listen very carefully to everyone's opinion and I do not write off anybody. As for kink, it is so large that it can allow room for all people.

Sure, if that particular Dominant person considers that part of their job description.
Have a sense of control over circumstances. Get their own needs met, whatever form that takes.

Personally, I see dominant people as the ones with the surplus of self-control, planning, logic, understanding, ease, happiness and control of circumstances, whereas I see the submissive person as the one with the surplas of energy, the one who is there to actually put that energy into service (clean floors, keep the Dom/Domme comfortable etc.) I have not noticed anyone disagree with that view so far. Perhaps giving to the sub the opportunity to be of service is considered of minor importance in D/s? I don't know, I am sure I do not understand why the objection to the Dom/Domme as the person who is less needy.

Devil's advocacy -

Someone gives an order, someone carries it out - D/s achieved. D/s is not about wondering if there is therapeutic value, wondering if you are moving toward spiritual enlightenment, horrible poetry or sparkling vampires. All that other stuff is extraneous to it and optional as a condiment if that's your thing - but IT is not D/s. D/s is not complicated - it is the simplest form of human interaction there is. It's Simon Says. The fact that we put it into relationship context with a partner makes it complex, because partnership is freaking complex.

I see. So you are saying that as long as someone gives an order and someone obeys, that constitutes Domination and submission? A very interesting point of view.

How about some eastern societies, in the Middle East for example, where that is part of the social fabric (with women always as the sub, in patriarchal societies)? Do they practice D/s there too?

Do you really not see how condescending you come off?

I am sorry, but I do not see that. If I have offended anyone, I do apologize. Perhaps there are nuances in communication at Lit that I am not familiar with? Do subs have to grovel a bit perhaps?

I have translated an article, posted it here, and now we are discussing it to the best of our ability. As for me, I merely state my opinion (I was actually asked for it), bearing in mind that sometimes we hold the wrong opinions, for a host of different reasons. I do believe in the things I say and I stand up for them, as politely as I possibly can, as do most people, using logical points and examples.

Context: I was responding to the statement that "modern medicine has not taken very seriously the task of coming up with an inherently consistent and general definition of sickness and health". I mentioned those mostly in connection with the "sickness" part of the statement.

Understood. Because these are manuals that define illness, not health.

If you want material specifically about defining health, then you could look at things like the ICF, which iterates a whole bunch of capabilities associated with different aspects of health

Thanks! I will inform the writer of the article, so he may incorporate it in his argument! At least some attempt is being made by modern medicine to shift focus, or something to that effect.

They measure either or both, depending on the type of athlete. When my friend describes the difficulty grading of a rockface she can climb, that's hardly just "absence of illness"; it's a positive capability.

It is not an expression of health though, is it? It is an expression of strength. And isn't it rather obvious that health and strength are one and the same thing, when scrutinized more carefully?

As far as I can tell, its argument is: doms have "strength", therefore they are capable of teaching "strength" to others, and "strength" is what submissives need to deal with mental illness.

No, actually the article does not say that. It says that Doms/Dommes have more strength than subs and they are capable of teaching it to others. The article rejects the view of less strength as "mental illness", unless it is a truly serious disease (it mentions psychosis, I would add schizophrenia).

I'm glad the article acknowledges that much. But it then immediately goes on to state that "less important illness", including phobias, can be cured by a Dom within minutes. This is reckless and irresponsible advice.

Why? If a Dom/Domme can help me with my fear of heights or my fear of spiders, why is that dangerous and irresponsible? I will simply say thanks - okay, I will also give him my special blow-job (or go down on her if it is a Domme) to express my gratitude. And if he/she cannot, I will go to a psychologist to try some desensitization sessions or whatever the psychologist suggests.

I do not see any danger or irresponsibility in either case.

Some people have relationships where they take some responsibility for one another's personal growth, be that in a D/S framework or something more conventional. Others have relationships based on the fact that they enjoy one another's company and both like to play the same way. Neither option is wrong, neither option is mandatory.

Of course, we all agree on that I think. The article deals specifically with D/s viewed as an exchange of energy and responsibility, in very broad terms. If two people enjoy this type of relationship, who are we to judge it? I am fine with any kind of relationship, as long as it works for the people involved.

Re. the statement that "Does this mean that ignorant people are excluded from creating D/s relationships? Certainly yes. Lazy people? Also yes. Hmm... how about those who have so many other personal obligations, which do not allow them to make the effort? Well, what can you do? Aristotle excluded from politics people who worked for a living, for the exact same reason. Besides, all those people usually prefer vanilla/kinky behaviors anyway, so they will be fine with that. "

Possibly true; depending on how you define D/S it might be feasible to say that time-poor people won't be able to do it.

But what the essay claimed was that they don't WANT to do it - "those people usually prefer vanilla/kinky behaviors anyway". That's where we get to "citation needed".

It is self-evident that people who do not spare the time will never opt for something very time-consuming. As far as I see it, no citation is needed. If someone comes along and purports that he/she WANTS to engage in a time-consuming endeavor and it is just impossible for him/her and that is why he/she does S/M in a professional dungeon every Friday night, then we will all address that person's problem with specific advice, such as "you must sacrifice some activity", "you could always change your job" or "sleep less" (I actually said that last one to a Dom who did not have time for me, but he did not see my side of things so he went along on his way, we are still friends though and he still plays the Friday Master with little girls, lol - extremely good-looking guy).

I am almost positive that the author did not mean to imply that non-D/s BDSM is "vanilla kink" and therefore inferior to Twu Dominance.

But I'm not quite positive. After all, he's a Real Master, right? Everything he does, he does purposefully. He doesn't make mistakes.

Wanna buy a bridge? I got one right here in my coat pocket.

I am also rather tired of the Twu Dominance thing that always belongs to the person who is "selling" and no one else has it, lol. However, when I come across something that I deem correct, I tend to listen to the voice of logic. Luckily, I am no longer too needy or too emotional to fall for every charlatan out there who says he is the real thing and the others are not.

Now, if you think that this particular point of view discussed here does not express the truth, so be it. I am sure there are zillions of different views around, enough to suit everyone...
 
Yes, and those things take time (essays and floors, lol). We are in complete agreement then.



DSM is quite explicit about what serious mental illness is. When in doubt, one can always consult that manual.


Some people in this particular forum seem to think it is an irrelevant generalization. One thinks it makes me wet. If I may be allowed, I consider these two views erroneous. As for the second one, I am certain and I even vouch for it, since we are talking of my personal wetness, lol. I am easy, but not THAT easy...



I do listen very carefully to everyone's opinion and I do not write off anybody. As for kink, it is so large that it can allow room for all people.
The point is that the logic you boast, is built on a given that many of us don't agree with you about.


Personally, I see dominant people as the ones with the surplus of self-control, planning, logic, understanding, ease, happiness and control of circumstances, whereas I see the submissive person as the one with the surplas of energy, the one who is there to actually put that energy into service (clean floors, keep the Dom/Domme comfortable etc.) I have not noticed anyone disagree with that view so far. Perhaps giving to the sub the opportunity to be of service is considered of minor importance in D/s? I don't know, I am sure I do not understand why the objection to the Dom/Domme as the person who is less needy.
No, I don't agree.
Not everyone wants service.
For some, the service they want is planning, logic etc.


I see. So you are saying that as long as someone gives an order and someone obeys, that constitutes Domination and submission? A very interesting point of view.

How about some eastern societies, in the Middle East for example, where that is part of the social fabric (with women always as the sub, in patriarchal societies)? Do they practice D/s there too?
As far as I have seen in my contacts with people from that part of the world, relationships are a very different there like everywhere else depending on the individuals in it.



I am sorry, but I do not see that. If I have offended anyone, I do apologize. Perhaps there are nuances in communication at Lit that I am not familiar with? Do subs have to grovel a bit perhaps?

I have translated an article, posted it here, and now we are discussing it to the best of our ability. As for me, I merely state my opinion (I was actually asked for it), bearing in mind that sometimes we hold the wrong opinions, for a host of different reasons. I do believe in the things I say and I stand up for them, as politely as I possibly can, as do most people, using logical points and examples.
You don't have to grovel at all.
My problem is that your opinion doesn't just extend to how you should do D/s but to how others should do it.

Of course, we all agree on that I think. The article deals specifically with D/s viewed as an exchange of energy and responsibility, in very broad terms. If two people enjoy this type of relationship, who are we to judge it? I am fine with any kind of relationship, as long as it works for the people involved.


It is self-evident that people who do not spare the time will never opt for something very time-consuming. As far as I see it, no citation is needed. If someone comes along and purports that he/she WANTS to engage in a time-consuming endeavor and it is just impossible for him/her and that is why he/she does S/M in a professional dungeon every Friday night, then we will all address that person's problem with specific advice, such as "you must sacrifice some activity", "you could always change your job" or "sleep less" (I actually said that last one to a Dom who did not have time for me, but he did not see my side of things so he went along on his way, we are still friends though and he still plays the Friday Master with little girls, lol - extremely good-looking guy).


I am also rather tired of the Twu Dominance thing that always belongs to the person who is "selling" and no one else has it, lol. However, when I come across something that I deem correct, I tend to listen to the voice of logic. Luckily, I am no longer too needy or too emotional to fall for every charlatan out there who says he is the real thing and the others are not.

Now, if you think that this particular point of view discussed here does not express the truth, so be it. I am sure there are zillions of different views around, enough to suit everyone...
Personally I think we could have had a way more interesting conversation, discussing how time consuming D/s needs to be and how to handle time constraints.
That would have been a discussion from different viewpoints and different ways to look at D/s, instead of a discussion based purely on Wrong's point of view.
 
Personally, I see dominant people as the ones with the surplus of self-control, planning, logic, understanding, ease, happiness and control of circumstances, whereas I see the submissive person as the one with the surplas of energy, the one who is there to actually put that energy into service (clean floors, keep the Dom/Domme comfortable etc.) I have not noticed anyone disagree with that view so far.
The single bolded word makes this one of the most true statements you have yet made...


Perhaps giving to the sub the opportunity to be of service is considered of minor importance in D/s? I don't know, I am sure I do not understand why the objection to the Dom/Domme as the person who is less needy.
There is an objection to that being a universal characterisation.

What you are describing is, of course, everybody's dream Dom/me. And I know plenty of PYLs (Pick Your Label) who aspire and work towards being that kind of person. But they certainly can be dominant, and be labelled as such, while flawed.

I think that most of us who post here have gotten tired of statements that define the True Scotsman.
... plays the Friday Master with little girls, lol
That's downright insulting, given what you said about him before that observation. This man prioritises his time responsibly, as far as I can see.
 
Last edited:
The single bolded word makes this one of the most true statements you have yet made...


There is an objection to that being a universal characterisation.

What you are describing is, of course, everybody's dream Dom/me. And I know plenty of PYLs (Pick Your Label) who aspire and work towards being that kind of person. But they certainly can be dominant, and be labelled as such, while flawed.

I think that most of us who post here have gotten tired of statements that define the True Scotsman.
That's downright insulting, given what you said about him before that observation. This man prioritises his time responsibly, as far as I can see.

If a purported slave/sub said to me "sleep less" because he wants more attention I think you'd hear me laughing my ass off cross country.

If that person then accused me of "playing at REAL Domination" it would be even funnier.

Maybe submissive little boys will come running to that, but I won't. It's an obvious goad into toeing the line and being the good little bitch to your slave's perpetual neeeeeeds.

There are a LOT of forms of manipulation and topping from the bottom. This one isn't even that insidious, but it's the most prevalent, I think.

I suppose the only truism is that power lies in the willingness to be first to walk away. I'm always happy to put down what I'm doing and move on when I'm finding that the help is the headache. If I want complexity - that's why I'm married.
 
Last edited:
I see. So you are saying that as long as someone gives an order and someone obeys, that constitutes Domination and submission? A very interesting point of view.

How about some eastern societies, in the Middle East for example, where that is part of the social fabric (with women always as the sub, in patriarchal societies)? Do they practice D/s there too?

Yes, actually. But no. Sort of.

First of all, I don't think you can make sweeping generalizations. There are all kinds of individuals in any culture.

Second, I don't think that the expectation that women are on the bottom is necessarily SO MUCH less anywhere than anywhere else, the implementation and the variations on the theme and the levels of expectation are what difffer in cultures, but it's not ever entirely missing.

There is, outside the postindustrial west, domination and submission, and sometimes very little like a D/s BDSM subculture.

Without the emphasis on sexual freedom and sexual variation and sexual subculture, I would not say "they are practising D/s" because I don't think you can transpose sexual identities so neatly across cultures identically.

But for D/s I look for a relationship marked by conscious inequality. Both participants aware, consenting, and solving issues without striving for mutual consensus as the only and best solution. Once foundational things are agreed on, someone says jump and someone says how high and that's D/s. The navel gazing can stop once you are more or less in agreement as to how things should function. If it's not working, and you spend more time dissecting why not than obeying, something's rotten in Denmark.

None of this has anything to do with curing phobias (notice Dominants never have any) with bad pop psych intentions and no toolbox for cleaning up the land mines you set off. The one thing that I do take responsibility for is if I set it off, I better have an idea of how I plan on cleaning it up. Which is why I'm very surgical about which charges we shall play our little dramas out around and which we shall not.

I know a lot about embarrassment, and I don't know much about the spider thing. It's a person's right to be rationally irrational about a few things.
 
Last edited:
That's downright insulting, given what you said about him before that observation. This man prioritises his time responsibly, as far as I can see.

You are insulted on his behalf? How strange...

We still love each other very much actually. He agrees with me that it is impossible to do D/s every Friday. He has no choice though, he has a family and a very successful business and that is the best he can do: kinky sex, spiced with S/M, very hard S/M actually.

But I will let him know you felt insulted over that.

But for D/s I look for a relationship marked by conscious inequality.

Now we are talking.

Is the inequality arbitrary? Can we choose just anyone and say, now you will be the Dom and I will be the sub?

Is there any inner truth that we base these functions, Dom and sub, on?

PS. I do not understand the comment, "make it stop". Is it obligatory to read any threads? We come and go as we please and we all choose what to read and what to spend our time on. There are so many interesting discussions here, @KoPilot, why torment yourself by returning to this thread which is obviously upsetting you? I don't get it, really. Unless you wanted to say to me, "shut up already, I do not agree with you". In which case, why not say it directly like that? I am fine with disagreement.
 
I am going to assume that your conversational blindness is the result of something other than malice. But it's tiresome, and more trouble than you are worth, so far. Ciao.
 
Back
Top