Shame and Humiliation

[xssve]

I'll give him a shot if I ever get into lesbian sadomasochism if my understanding appears to be in doubt - I'll admit to gaps in my education in that area. John Warren is more popular among the crowd I hang out with, but again, I tend to resist the forces of institutionalization, particularly in the area of sex, and prefer to simply deal with adults who can articulate their own needs without resorting to outside authority.

It was really my use of the term "valid" 'twas in dispute, we sorted that out elsewhere and I'm not trying to revive it, just reifying what the Doc said; it is established as a literary device if nothing else.

 

[xssve]

De Sade is, of course, considered something of an authority on the pathology of sexual psychosis; 120 Days has been compared to Krafft-Ebing, and castration fears could be considered relevant to that.

Peace.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Califia is a fabulous writer, period, and his fiction deals with men and women in all kinds of combos-- if you are looking for ways in which all sexual dynamics intersect-- as well as a really hot, passionate orgasmic read-- I recommend him.

Not to mention he writes from experience-- both of his own and of an huge community. Shared wisdom. It's a wonderful thing!

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Sheesh, De Sade is not for weak stomachs, even a strong one must resist the urge to vomit occasionally.

Anyway, I'd like to see more stories dealing with consent issues, it's an entire subject in itself, and a subject complicated by issues of ambiance; i.e., implicit consent, vs. explicit, the possibility of coercion, i.e., informed vs. uninformed, etc., etc.

One school believes in exhaustive formal explicit consent, while for another this is thought to interfere with the dynamic, even the first time out, and there is an entire range in between; humiliation for example can be incorporated into the consensual process, i.e., begging for example, and can be way of bridging the gap between implicit and explicit consent.

It's a fascinating topic, and not the least because it forms the basis of any kind of legal defense of the sort of practices common in BDSM, where non-consent is often feigned, or at least it is attempted to be forgotten once granted.

It's not necessarily as fine a line as one might expect, or appears from outside; the act of negotiation itself is often opaque, and has occurred "offscreen" so to speak, and it tends to be a much finer line in vanilla relationships IMO, where negotiations are more ad hoc, and informal, with schools ranging from implicit consent (marriage as blanket formal consent), to formal complaints over perceived affronts to ones dignity (litigation), at minimum, subject to informal contextual power games within the relationship, and it can come from either side.

I don't want to get too deep into it, but it is part of the dance, and it introduces the element of conflict, which while we might wish to avoid it in the real world as much as possible, is de rigeur to a large extent in literature.

In other words, it seems a natural device to me to introduce conflict into a story, with a relatively easy route to a satisfactory resolution.

This is what concerns me most of the time, especially in my stories -- consent and motivation -- and that's why I usually don't deal with Cory's kind of totally consensual BDSM, even though it's much more common in real life. Not only is there no drama there to hang a story on (no psychological conflict between master and sub), but the easy acceptance of BDSM roles doesn't allow an author to explore the motivations and internal processes in BDSM. Basically, in consensual BDSM, the characters are doing it because they want to, and that's all you can say about it. Story over.

I came across the same thing when I posted a question to the BDSM board once, asking doms why they whipped their subs: what emotion they were expressing or what they were feeling; what they thought the whipping meant. I was very disappointed in the answers, which were invariably, "I do it because I want to." Well fine. But that doesn't give any insight as to why they whip their subs. That doesn't contribute to the BDSM narrative or rationale.

From a purely literary point of view, BDSM that starts out non-consensual is always the most dramatic; this is, without any consent at all. The acceleration of the sub character is most extreme in such stories, going from resistive to enthusiastic participant, but here's where the problem of the BDSM narrative comes in, the mythic rationale that turns a vanilla character into a sub. There's got to a be a psychological basis for this change. The sub has to learn that they get more out of giving in D/s terms than they do from their normal vanilla role, and it has to be more than, "Hey! This getting whipped business is pretty cool!"

And speaking from the dom's POV, you have to have something more than the fact that they just get off on whipping people. Simple sadism is a lousy motivation upon which to build a human relationship (unless your sadist is a villain). That's why I agree with Allard and don't do BDSM without love and sexual desire involved, because BDSM's always about desire for me. It's not an end in itself.

It's in trying to explain the narrative and explore the emotional connection between dom and sub that I come up with these ideas on shame and limits and behavioral possession and all that. It's pretty much as though you were turning your BDSM into a role-playing game and had to describe the roles you were going to play with their histories (that's what I mean by the BDSM narrative: the fantasy context) in order to give depth to the play. Otherwise you just have someone hitting and someone getting hit.

Don't know if this is what you meant about consent, now that I think about it, but i realize that's a big part of it for me, at least in fiction. The consent is never negotiated. That element of threat is left hanging over the whole encounter.

 

[Corylea]

Interesting post, Doc.

I think there can be interesting psychological stuff going on in consensual BDSM, though often the conflicts are within the top, rather than the bottom. I have known several real-life tops who had occasional crises of conscience about wanting what they wanted -- I think kind and moral people almost have to -- and how does the top handle that? Does s/he wrestle with it on their own? Do they ask their bottom for reassurance? Do they pretend -- just to themselves or to the bottom, too -- that the bottom "deserves" it for some reason? Do they do one of those elaborate role-plays (which I've heard about but never done) of prisoner/interrogator or teacher/student or priest/heretic?

How does the bottom handle the top's crisis of conscience? Do they provide reassurance? Do they think less of the top? Do they do things that they know will annoy the top to try to provide an excuse?

I think there's also an interesting story in a previously single-role person who becomes a switch, whether they're going from top to bottom or from bottom to top.

And I think that the scenario I've described as "sacrifice" can have interesting psychological stuff going on, for all that it's consensual, since it's intentionally going beyond what the bottom is comfortable with. Even though the bottom knows ahead of time that they'll be going beyond where they normally go and consents to go there, that doesn't mean that s/he will have no internal struggles about following through -- going there is difficult, almost by definition. How do they make it possible to go further than they find comfortable? Do they hang on to their love for the top? To the fact that they promised? To some macho/a internal self-image? Are they hoping that the top will only do a little more than usual, or are they hoping that s/he will do a lot more? Does the bottom think that the top will prove that s/he likes or loves them by going only a little way past the usual limits -- I care too much to really make you uncomfortable -- or does the bottom think that the top will prove that s/he likes or loves them by going far past the usual limts -- I care about you too much to throw your gift in your face and not really take what you're giving me. What happens if the bottom assumes that the path of caring is one of those things, and the top assumes the other?

And nearly everyone has things that scare them. I amuse and amaze people by being scared of bondage, which most people think of as the "lightest" of the various BDSM activities. (I've never been tied up; the very idea freaks me out.) I really like cutting, and some people want to fall over at the very thought. One person's mild and pleasant activity can be another person's bogeyman. Facing fears can be an interesting premise on which to hang a story, and it practically demands that one get inside the character's heads. Is the bottom facing a fear because s/he wants to, or because the top wants them to? How do they handle the fear? A scenario in which the top has the bottom's permission to do whatever the scary thing is, no matter how scared the bottom gets, may be officially consensual, but the emotions will be a lot more like the ones you like to write.

And I'm just scratching the surface, here.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Doc, you're making "consensual BDSM" sound like "Leave it to Beaver."

"Consensual" means, in its most basic sense, that the people involved know there are going to be some extreme sensations and/or emotions happening, and that no one is going to call the cops afterwards.

Have you ever heard of a BDSM scene, or read one, where there were no boundary transgressions? What would be the point of that?

I've taken part in scenes that didn't push my boundaries, but certainly pushed my pertner's, and that's another kind of sacrifice.And once, I remember, coming to meet a top, and just not clicking with her-- couldn't get into bottom space, and ended up boring the poor woman to death, while she coddled me. We left each other mutually unsatisfied. Such a shame.


No ropes for Cory *makes a note*

 

[Corylea]

Doc, you're making "consensual BDSM" sound like "Leave it to Beaver."

*laugh* Good one!

God, Stella, I love your style.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Here, this is worth answering!

I came across the same thing when I posted a question to the BDSM board once, asking doms why they whipped their subs: what emotion they were expressing or what they were feeling; what they thought the whipping meant. I was very disappointed in the answers, which were invariably, "I do it because I want to." Well fine. But that doesn't give any insight as to why they whip their subs. That doesn't contribute to the BDSM narrative or rationale.

Ah, Doc, you just ran into the "doer vs thinker" gap. Lots of people do things, and do have deep emotions relating, and cannot or will not express those emotions in words. But they will recognise their feelings if the read them, and they'll be glad to see someone express it all for them.
And that's what you and I write.

 

[AllardChardon]

This is the most fascinating thread.

After reading these posts, I doubt I could be a top. I had to learn to discipline my children out of sheer necessity, otherwise I would have treated them like my best friends and that just does not work in raising children. But I hated spanking them and did it only when it was absolutely necessary in my thinking. I felt horrible afterwards, even though I knew they had sustained no permanent damage.

Of course, I was spanked as I child. I DESERVED it. Believe me when I say I was a difficult child. Very headstrong.

Now, as a mature woman, a male friend introduced me to spankings and I must say, I love it! Hence, my interest in BDSM, although I have gone no farther than this.

But I have fantacized about being tied up and fucked since I was a teenager. The very idea makes me wet. And I have never had this done, but am willing to try this with the right person. I am afraid it will be hard to feign non-consent. I will more likely be screaming, yes, more, more.... a very enthusiatic lover am I. LOL

 

[Pure]

note to doc

docbut the easy acceptance of BDSM roles doesn't allow an author to explore the motivations and internal processes in BDSM. Basically, in consensual BDSM, the characters are doing it because they want to, and that's all you can say about it. Story over.

p: i agree with stella here. you have reduced consensual to preplanned, non extreme, and non discomfort-producing. i would remind you that the most famous recent literary porn, the story of o, is consensual; it is implicit, but clearly demonstrated, at the beginning and expressly affirmed at a couple places. the equation of consent and 'want to' is too facile. o consents, one might say, at the metalevel; whether, in an early scene she *wants* to be violated by 5 men is open to question. this holds outside of literature and imagination, as well. consents can take the form of 'do with me what you will, so long as i can walk away.' the events after are only in a general senses 'wanted.' or in the paradoxical sense of 'i want to do these things that i don't want to do.' the surprises for the read and person are the exact ways the top/dom chooses to subject. and the reactions.

docI came across the same thing when I posted a question to the BDSM board once, asking doms why they whipped their subs: what emotion they were expressing or what they were feeling; what they thought the whipping meant. I was very disappointed in the answers, which were invariably, "I do it because I want to." Well fine. But that doesn't give any insight as to why they whip their subs. That doesn't contribute to the BDSM narrative or rationale.

p: i believe stell mentioned the problem of a 'doer' versus a teacher or explainer. from a literary pov, however, there is another factor. a narrative typically privileges one person's experience. if it is the bottom's then the top's motives are left to the imagination. this holds in the 'story of o', and does not, imo, detract from the narrative, which is focused on the bottom/sub's undergoings and experiences.

doc From a purely literary point of view, BDSM that starts out non-consensual is always the most dramatic; this is, without any consent at all. The acceleration of the sub character is most extreme in such stories, going from resistive to enthusiastic participant, but here's where the problem of the BDSM narrative comes in, the mythic rationale that turns a vanilla character into a sub. There's got to a be a psychological basis for this change. The sub has to learn that they get more out of giving in D/s terms than they do from their normal vanilla role, and it has to be more than, "Hey! This getting whipped business is pretty cool!"

p: i would disagree with this, for reasons stated. it almost tends to reduced an SM story to events following a kidnapping or wrongful confinement or rape. i agree a story will likely have a transition, but the one you mention may be, for reasons you state, the hardest to pull off. it's plausible and easier to make the transition within the bottom from unseasoned to seasoned, or from partially subject to wholly subject (somewhat as in 'o').

i agree one wants a 'psychological basis.' but in fact, if things are as you propose, going from vanilla to sub, one would expect various events in the allegedly vanilla life to be highlighted. e.g. reading the story of a whipping and getting very aroused.

i suspect the disagreement here is centered around 'conflict' and your view of one partner as overcoming the other, making a kind of conquest. you want that. in some ways i agree, but 'nonconsensual' is not quite the right term, here. [rather, difficult, challenging, ordeal-like] one has to remember that, short of kidnapping or bondage, the person subjected is not forced to stay; 'the door is open' as the saying goes. so we have the paradox that the person overcome or the object of 'conquest' is somehow in on the events. not engineering them, but shall we say, at least implicitly setting the stage for them.
this is a global or overall sense of "i want to be taken." there will of course, be resistance. but the paradoxical wish in the bottom may well be "i want my resistance, quite real, not feigned, to be overcome."

so while i agree about 'conflict', i locate it, at least half, within the bottom/sub. if i my use a couple well worn analogies: consider the story of someone entering the priesthood of the RC church. consider the volunteer soldier who wants the training, and to fight in Iraq. the *story* in each case is "where the tire hits the road."
the recruit is exhausted and lying in the mud; the sergeant says [all a cliche, i know] 'do you want out, pussy?' 'no, sir!'
---

doc: And speaking from the dom's POV, you have to have something more than the fact that they just get off on whipping people. Simple sadism is a lousy motivation upon which to build a human relationship (unless your sadist is a villain). That's why I agree with Allard and don't do BDSM without love and sexual desire involved, because BDSM's always about desire for me. It's not an end in itself.

p: i partly agree here, though i can't address 'the dom's pov.' obviously it's not just the whipping, for the bottom, either. yes, love and desire may well be involved; perhaps they are, in the best stories. that said, your quest for explanation and plausibility has limits. i ask you the dom, 'why do you want to conquer a loved one' ; you say, 'i like it; conquest makes feel good; i love the total authority and thrill to its exercize.' the subjected person similarly cannot go all that far, beyond saying, 'being helpless before my lover has its unique rewards and erotism.' indeed, i can imagine a story where 'no explanation' is highlighted. "i find myself once again under my lover's boot, and it's brutal but fitting. i don't know why i crave this or how far this tendency will go."

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm reminded that the author tells us, at one point that 'O' would "gladly sell her own mother" to stop any whipping, but feels wonderfully peaceful afterwards.

There are a number of ways to make non-consent part of a consensual scene. In one of my stories, Jessamine lets herself be blackmailed into subbing for Sheba-- and being blackmailed into it is a huge part of the sexual thrill for her.

 

[AllardChardon]

I have never been whipped, but have found the pain of spanking lasts only a short time, converted into a kind of sublime numbness on the exterior, while the spanks themselves reach a far deeper and very erotic place. I never would have thought this was true. Experience taught me otherwise. I did not feel shame or humiliation, more curiosity than anything, with wonderful rewards. I am glad my lover talked me out of the closet. I could have stayed in there (without true knowledge) forever. EEK! But I will freely admit, in this crowd, I am a babe in the woods.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I have never been whipped, but have found the pain of spanking lasts only a short time, converted into a kind of sublime numbness on the exterior, while the spanks themselves reach a far deeper and very erotic place. I never would have thought this was true. Experience taught me otherwise. I did not feel shame or humiliation, more curiosity than anything, with wonderful rewards. I am glad my lover talked me out of the closet. I could have stayed in there (without true knowledge) forever. EEK! But I will freely admit, in this crowd, I am a babe in the woods.

OH yeah! Spanking increases the blood flow in some very happy places!

And depending on how hard and prolonged the spanking is, you'll go past the numbness into itchy-tingles.

And a spanking with toys inserted, is something to try also.

 

[AllardChardon]

Stella, I appreciate your expert advice in such matters.

I would like to say that I am grateful to Doc for starting this thread and I am grateful LIT exists so we can share our experiences and knowledge with each other is such a safe way.

Thank you to everyone who shared their innermost thoughts, especially Cory. You are a brave woman to admit you like cutting. I can see how it could make some people simply go out the door. But your description of it brought forth visions of a Mayan temple, sacred ritual and honor and a host of other unexplained feelings in me that I never found on my own. Other lifetimes, other loves is the only way I can describe it. I fully understand your motivation.

And I agree, as a sub, even if you consent, there is still fear, that the dom can go over edges and go further than you want to go... possibly...in a worst case scenario, and that leads to tension, lots of it, that gets released during the play, hopefully... The sub must submit and for a headstrong woman like me, that is not an easy task.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, there's a difference between consent and permission as i understand it. It's permission that infuses D/s and makes it possible. Consent, as in allowing each act, is usually not granted, though it can be, as when a top proposes to use only a flogger on a bottom, or only a crop. When I was talking about consensual, I had in mind this kind of deed-by-deed consent. The kind of wide open non-negotiated play Pure's talking about is something else, and not really what i meant by consensual.

I admit that, as far as BDSM goes, I really approach it as a writer, and my focus is almost always on the relationship between dom and sub, and so I'm much more interested in what's going on there in the changing status and intimacy and how they're understanding their relationship than I am in understanding a person's private struggles with their limits on pain or fear.

I didn't mean to imply that consensual is Mickey Mouse, only that from the POV of writing a story, fully consensual BDSM takes the motivation out of the picture by definition. Yes, you can still have tension over how far the dom will take the sub, but the relationship between them is already fixed and static.

I suppose that's why I gave the example of the sadistic dom as being a poor subject for a story, because his concerns are basically solipsistic. He's in love with the pain, not the person he's whipping, and so there's just not much story there. His session along with his sub's are likely to be two, privately felt experiences consisting mostly of sensation without any great psychological complexity of interaction, if you know what I mean.

But then, I've gotten into trouble before for my contention that, despite the intensely intimate nature of pain, S&M always runs the danger of becoming mechanical and impersonal.

More interesting to me is the non-sadistic dom who comes at their rationale for hurting another person by some other route. It's usually a reaction to beauty or desire, and opens up some rich grounds for exploration.

 

[rgraham666]

In my BDSM stories the dom is usually not that fond of pain. "It's useful for discipline, arousing as a facet of my power, but of little interest to me in itself," is the way one character describes it.

My dom's motivation is about pleasing the sub. I don't regard this as a contradiction, although I know many people do. The pain, the helplessness, the overwhelming of their inhibitions, this is what the sub wants. And the dom gives it to them.

Start flaming. That's what's happened every other time I voice this belief.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In my BDSM stories the dom is usually not that fond of pain. "It's useful for discipline, arousing as a facet of my power, but of little interest to me in itself," is the way one character describes it.

My dom's motivation is about pleasing the sub. I don't regard this as a contradiction, although I know many people do. The pain, the helplessness, the overwhelming of their inhibitions, this is what the sub wants. And the dom gives it to them.

Start flaming. That's what's happened every other time I voice this belief.

it's for sure one way to play-- I play this way a lot.

 

[Corylea]

Well, there's a difference between consent and permission as i understand it. It's permission that infuses D/s and makes it possible. Consent, as in allowing each act, is usually not granted, though it can be, as when a top proposes to use only a flogger on a bottom, or only a crop. When I was talking about consensual, I had in mind this kind of deed-by-deed consent. The kind of wide open non-negotiated play Pure's talking about is something else, and not really what i meant by consensual.

I suppose someone, somewhere must do that deed-by-deed thing, but I rarely see it, except as the first interaction between two previously unacquainted players. In my experience, both people usually mention what they especially like and what they won't do, and they come to some general agreement. Sometimes this is as specific as, "Sensation play, mostly impact, stay away from the soles of your feet," and sometimes it's as vague as "I plan to take control of you and make you do lots of things, but I won't do anything that I know grosses you out." Yes, having any limits or preferences does limit the top somewhat, but the top's skills and desires also limit the bottom. Within that range, though, they have wide latitude. People who play together once ever or once every six months may never get anything especially interesting going, for all that they have fun while they're playing, but regular or even semi-regular partners usually learn enough about each other to make a great deal of uncertainty possible. With regular partners, my rule is usually something like, "Don't do anything you know I hate without prior negotiation; aside from that, do anything you want, including things I've never tried before." That's a long way from "A flogger is okay, but don't use a crop."

I admit that, as far as BDSM goes, my focus is almost always on the relationship between dom and sub, and so I'm much more interested in what's going on there in the changing status and intimacy and how they're understanding their relationship than I am in understanding a person's private struggles with their limits on pain or fear.

I'm very interested in getting inside other people's heads (as I think you may be aware ), so private struggles with intense feelings may interest me more than they do the average person.

from the POV of writing a story, fully consensual BDSM takes the motivation out of the picture by definition. Yes, you can still have tension over how far the dom will take the sub, but the relationship between them is already fixed and static.

No, it isn't. It really isn't. Trust and caring both grow over time, and a couple's first scene may be mild sensation play, whereas their fifth scene may be about expanding their relationship with each other. Most of the people I know identify as sorta halfway in between top and dom or bottom and sub. They start out with sensation play and add D/S overtones as the relationship grows. I don't like taking a new person on as a submissive, because it feels as if they're looking for a role instead of looking for me. I take a new person on as a bottom, and if our relationship evolves to the point where I start feeling owny and/or they start feeling subby, then those things are about who we are and our relationship with each other. That means that the relationship between the partners is always growing and changing over time. A new bottom will usually allow A - D, an established bottom will allow A - L, and a long-term bottom will allow A - T. Every scene usually involves an expansion of the relationship, a letting the partner in to vulnerabilities that hadn't been open to them before, a sharing of deeper feelings and secrets and weaknesses.

I suppose that's why I gave the example of the sadistic dom as being a poor subject for a story, because his concerns are basically solipsistic. He's in love with the pain, not the person he's whipping, and so there's just not much story there.

It's quite possible to be in love with both. In my relationship with M, yes, he was a sadist, but he loved me, and that's part of what brought about both the tension within each partner and the tension in the relationship. In the beginning, he worried that I wouldn't be able to do what he needed, since I was a self-described "wimpy bottom," and this would have been problematic, since he was already in love with me. His focus in that stage was on finding a way to make things reasonably fun for me while still getting some of what he wanted. As our relationship progressed, and as he became more sure of my love for him, his concern was less with finding a way to get what he needed and more with whether or not it was okay to need this from someone you love. After we'd resolved that, the next stage involved his being reluctant to use me hard enough to satisfy himself, because of caring too much about me to want to stress me, and my insisting, "Let me give you this, damn it," because of my caring too much about him to want to deprive him. I don't think that there was ever a point when the relationship wasn't growing, changing or evolving, and as our relationship moved along, we went from each of us looking out for ourselves to each of us looking out for our partner (which is practically the definition of what love is).

His session along with his sub's are likely to be two, privately felt experiences consisting mostly of sensation without any great psychological complexity of interaction, if you know what I mean.

I'm sure that those people and those scenes exist, but the presence of a sadistic top doesn't require that the relationship have a paucity of engagement or passion; in my experience, it can have quite a lot.

I'm not trying to talk you into writing about it, since that's not where your interests lie; I just want to correct some misconceptions -- since if you have 'em, lots of other people probably do, too.

But then, I've gotten into trouble before for my contention that, despite the intensely intimate nature of pain, S&M always runs the danger of becoming mechanical and impersonal.

Perhaps it would be mechanical and impersonal for you if you did it. I have no quarrel with that -- if it's not your cup of tea, there's no reason to drink it. But there's also no reason to tell anyone else that the tea is either flavorless or poisonous.

More interesting to me is the non-sadistic dom who comes at their rationale for hurting another person by some other route. It's usually a reaction to beauty or desire, and opens up some rich grounds for exploration.

You find that interesting? Gosh, I would never have suspected! *grin* *tease*

 

[Corylea]

My dom's motivation is about pleasing the sub. I don't regard this as a contradiction, although I know many people do. The pain, the helplessness, the overwhelming of their inhibitions, this is what the sub wants. And the dom gives it to them.

Start flaming. That's what's happened every other time I voice this belief.

This is a perfectly legitimate way to play; I've played this way plenty, though not always. In the circles I run in, this mode is called being a "service top." I know that there are people who argue that a service top is just a bottom with a whip, and "real" tops are cold, but trying to define one single style as "the only real and true BDSM" strikes me as a stupid waste of time.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's quite possible to be in love with both. In my relationship with M, yes, he was a sadist, but he loved me, and that's part of what brought about both the tension within each partner and the tension in the relationship. In the beginning, he worried that I wouldn't be able to do what he needed, since I was a self-described "wimpy bottom," and this would have been problematic, since he was already in love with me. His focus in that stage was on finding a way to make things reasonably fun for me while still getting some of what he wanted. As our relationship progressed, and as he became more sure of my love for him, his concern was less with finding a way to get what he needed and more with whether or not it was okay to need this from someone you love. After we'd resolved that, the next stage involved his being reluctant to use me hard enough to satisfy himself, because of caring too much about me to want to stress me, and my insisting, "Let me give you this, damn it," because of my caring too much about him to want to deprive him. I don't think that there was ever a point when the relationship wasn't growing, changing or evolving, and as our relationship moved along, we went from each of us looking out for ourselves to each of us looking out for our partner (which is practically the definition of what love is).

That's so romantic!

 

[AllardChardon]

I agree, it is romantic. And proves that no matter what sexual mask a person chooses to wear, the real person exists underneath, with all the dynamics that make that person unique, foibles and strengths included. The romantic part is that love can be found everywhere!

 

[Corylea]

The romantic part is that love can be found everywhere!

And can be expressed in many ways!

Flowers and candy optional.

 

[Stella_Omega]

And can be expressed in many ways!

Flowers and candy optional.

"Never mind the roses-- bring me the thorns."

 

[Corylea]

"Never mind the roses-- bring me the thorns."

As the saying goes....

 

[xssve]

Well, there's a difference between consent and permission as i understand it. It's permission that infuses D/s and makes it possible. Consent, as in allowing each act, is usually not granted, though it can be, as when a top proposes to use only a flogger on a bottom, or only a crop. When I was talking about consensual, I had in mind this kind of deed-by-deed consent. The kind of wide open non-negotiated play Pure's talking about is something else, and not really what i meant by consensual.

There is always some dispute about this, if I'm dealing with someone inexperienced, then yeah, I'll tell her what to expect, with more experienced people consent is usually negotiated before hand, in CM for example, it's right on your profile: loves, likes, tolerates, dislikes, curious about, and hard limits. Now this is implicit consent for anything short of hard limits, i.e., you can do the things she dislikes or tolerates, knowing that she's tried them before, and doesn't care for it, etc., but you don't have to get separate permission for each act, that would be somewhat intrusive, although, as I say, one can incorporate it into the narrative - the truth is, a lot of women really love being told what you're going to do to them, and by telling them in advance, by not protesting, they are in effect, granting implicit consent/permission without having to stop and fill out forms or something.

I admit that, as far as BDSM goes, I really approach it as a writer, and my focus is almost always on the relationship between dom and sub, and so I'm much more interested in what's going on there in the changing status and intimacy and how they're understanding their relationship than I am in understanding a person's private struggles with their limits on pain or fear.

I can see where you might not want to deal with the issue of formal consent, although it does have a lot to do with changing status and intimacy, when you get to the point you're pushing the limits of your partners comfort zone - your partner wants to do it, you have qualms, and that can work either way, like Corylea and her cutting - I'd have to be talked into doing something like that, and in truth, it probably wouldn't be that much fun for either of us, but I could do what's called psychological dominance, i.e., I do happen to have a lot of knives, I collect them, I used to make them, and just the presence of a knife in the bedroom freaks some people out (I keep them out of sight, I happen to feel the same way about knives as I do about guns: they're tools, not toys), and I'm not lying when I say if a chick comes at me with a knife in bed, I'm outta there.

But instead of saying, OK, I'll do it, I might grab a knife, and start waving it around saying "is this what you want"?, and chances are good, this is not at all what she intended, i.e., I don't understand the fetish, I'm just acting and being an ass, and for all I know she's a Black Belt and is gonna wipe the floor with my me if I did that. So it's going to take some time on my part to figure out what she get's out if it in order to do it properly, and by properly, in such a way that it get's her hot, because I can definitely get off on that.

Anyway, I'm wandering, but the point is, that even with consent, what you are consenting to do is to trust somebody not to fuck you up, and create a mutually satisfying experience - that can be tense enough with consent, without it, there is serious potentiality for misunderstanding that isn't going to end in a mutually satisfying experience.

I didn't mean to imply that consensual is Mickey Mouse, only that from the POV of writing a story, fully consensual BDSM takes the motivation out of the picture by definition. Yes, you can still have tension over how far the dom will take the sub, but the relationship between them is already fixed and static.

Maybe in your head, I've never found a sub that didn't have her own opinions, or was afraid to express them, and I don't know what I'd do with such a person if I found one.

i.e., there's that trust thing, there is a huge difference between slowly escalating a whipping with a flogger, and just laying into somebody with a single tail - they're both "flogging", but there's no comparison between the two other than in name.

I suppose that's why I gave the example of the sadistic dom as being a poor subject for a story, because his concerns are basically solipsistic. He's in love with the pain, not the person he's whipping, and so there's just not much story there. His session along with his sub's are likely to be two, privately felt experiences consisting mostly of sensation without any great psychological complexity of interaction, if you know what I mean.

But then, I've gotten into trouble before for my contention that, despite the intensely intimate nature of pain, S&M always runs the danger of becoming mechanical and impersonal.

More interesting to me is the non-sadistic dom who comes at their rationale for hurting another person by some other route. It's usually a reaction to beauty or desire, and opens up some rich grounds for exploration.

Again, it depends on the person, I've talked to women who want that, they can't stand affection, they need to be treated as impersonal objects, not common, but it's there, and this to me is the tension inherent in negotiation: there is often a vast gulf between saying you'll do it and actually doing it, some of that it internal, existential, but it's always in context of the relationship, the dyad, the exchange of energy, not just the exchange of power.

And I agree, as a sub, even if you consent, there is still fear, that the dom can go over edges and go further than you want to go... possibly...in a worst case scenario, and that leads to tension, lots of it, that gets released during the play, hopefully... The sub must submit and for a headstrong woman like me, that is not an easy task.

Exactly, the trepidation thing, and it's not always unfounded.

But even in something like bondage, one person might like the feeling of passive helplessness, submitting meekly, another might enjoy struggling till exhaustion, biting and cursing the whole time - it's interaction in that the top has to pay close attention in order to try and discern what the effect is and when to stop - timing is everything, i.e., knowing when to loosen the ropes.