Is BDSM intrinsecally sexual?

[rida]

independently of the presence of genital contact of any kind?

From another thread, there was a spin of that I think deserves its own thread.

Here are the posts for a quick start:

Any activity that can categorically be called BDSM is a sex activity. I don't understand why people have to see penis in vag, or mouth on genitalia to consider something sex. If you meet someone, they agree to flog you, you get a nice tingling between your legs, a little high in your brain, that's still sex.

The "casual" really just means engaging in some sort of mutual masturbation ie sex where your partner is seeking their own pleasure primarily and you're seeking yours. AllYouNeedIsLove thinks that's the Devil's Work, that masturbation is self-abuse, that sex is only right when your goal is in pleasuring someone else you adore religiously.

Mmmm.... maybe. Sometimes not. it might depend on the feeling of the people who are engaging, don't you think? Some people can't play a game of tennis without getting a hardon, doesn't mean that tennis is sex for everybody.
The "causal" really just means that we are both seeking pleasure, in whatever way we define that, without committing to a lifetime of co-dependency together.

For me, a big part of my pleasure is in pleasuring someone else. and it's certainly occurred to me that forcing orgasms on someone might be a form of masturbation for me. But that's not what makes the encounter casual.

A BDSM is not always a sexual and/or erotic act. On top of which, you said:

Casual sex implying some kind of sex act such as intercourse, oral sex, or manipulation of genitalia. None of these things are required for BDSM and there have been many times that I've seen people play without any of those.

Not to mention that there are many couples who do not participate in sex outside of their relationship but will participate in BDSM play with a third party.

Genital manipulation is really an outdated notion of what constitutes sex and sexuality. You can have phone sex without manipulating your own or another person's genitalia. The only thing you need for sex is a. more than one participant, b. some form of sexual satisfaction that's not entirely self induced. If someone gets turned on by any type of purposeful play, BDSM, phone chat, knowing I like some fetish and doing it for me...that's sexual activity.

This isn't for me to decide, but is BDSM as a lifestyle a sexually charged lifestyle or not? Is every act of dom/sub or s/m meant to turn people on? So the people who participate in BDSM with friends, they don't get turned on and go home and fuck their partners? It's casual sex/foreplay...

.....

I can play tennis without getting a hard on, but I don't know why I'd let someone tie me up, whip me, dominate me if not for the reason of some sort of satisfaction on their part. I can't imagine how that satisfaction isn't tied right into their sexuality.
*snip*.

Let the discussion roll!

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

To me it is. But it's also more than that.

BDSM *is* our sexlife, the physical expression of our D/s dynamic.

When we play, it *is* sexually charged, and it's a rare occurence where there is no actual sex.

And even if we don't start out with any particular form of play, and just sex, then there's always the power exchange.

That being said though, I don't get a sexual thrill out of things such as ironing his shirts and making his dinner, but those things make me feel happy and fulfilled on a different level.

So yeah, I do think it's intrinsically sexual, but it's also bigger than that.

And while I do understand that people can be involved in play on a non sexual level, I don't think I myself can. In that way, I *can* separate the sex from the bdsm.

I'm failing at trying to explain this. I'll hush up now.

 

[WriterDom]

It depends on who you are asking. For the majority of people, probably not. More than average on a porn site. Within this little corner, probably most.

 

[seela]

For me, intent is the key here. In my opinion spanking, whipping, wax play, bondage etc. are always sexual, because the intent of those actions is to cause the tingly feelings between the thighs. The biggest exceptions for my sweeping generalization there that I can come up with, are punishments and when somebody is showing how some things are done. Other than those, I find it difficult to come up with scenarios where no sexual tension is involved and where it isn't intended.

Then there's the whole world of non-physical acts.

I don't see scrubbing the toilet as a sexual act, but it's not unheard of that I start to feel the familiar throbbing as I scrub away when I realize what and who made me do it. Toilet scrubbing is very much BDSM for me, because it's one of my tasks, but I don't see it as sexual even if I do get the funky feelings on occasion. If the man, however, is watching me scrub the toilet and possibly making remarks about the situation the occasion becomes immensely sexual for me. Again, the intent for it to be sexual is there.

So yeah... I think BDSM as concrete physical acts is intrinsically sexual, but it's a tangled web and I don't think I made any sense at all.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I would never bother doing any "BDSM" with someone I wasn't fucking, so yes.

 

[BLoved]

For BDSM to be emotionally healthy, it must be viewed as a form of intimacy akin to love-making.

For those with dysfunctional attitudes, it is no more intimate than cleaning the toilet.

Healthy BDSM leads to intimate emotional bonding. Dysfunctional (casual) 'bdsm' leads to a lowering of self-esteem, manifesting itself in dysfunctional behaviour (review The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm' for examples of the kinds of personality dysfunctions manifested by those who practice and/or advocate dysfunctional 'bdsm').

 

[MisterSir]

Summary of the above: Blah blah biddy blah, I'm so stupid get me a donut.

 

[BiaTcHiNFiRe]

I would never bother doing any "BDSM" with someone I wasn't fucking, so yes.

Same here.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Summary of the above: Blah blah biddy blah, I'm so stupid get me a donut.

Mmm donuts and coffee.

Bring me some, please?

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Summary of the above: Blah blah biddy blah, I'm so stupid get me a donut.

Thanks for not quoting something I have on ignore.

 

[fuckmeat]

For me, it's intrinsically sexual. Every act of service and sacrifice gives me a satisfaction that has a direct effect on my libido. Putting G first in my thoughts and actions is the norm for me and I actually find having to prioritise something or someone else above her distressing, almost like a betrayal of my devotion to her.

Having said that, my G is very ill and has been for some time, so much so that I have taken a sabbatical from work to be her full time carer. She is my life right now and because she's not well enough for us to enjoy much physical intimacy, the little things have taken on a greater significance. Even when she was well though, I gained a degree of sexual satisfaction from things like scrubbing the toilet seat, because I knew I was doing something she would benefit from, that would make her pleased with me.

I don't find S&M pleasurable on any level without intimacy and an emotional connection. Being flogged by a stranger would just cause negative, unpleasant pain. Without the sexual element, it wouldn't gratify me at all. In the same way, I'm not a docile or passive person when interacting with others. Being dominated/controlled and treated as inferior by someone I didn't love and want to serve would make me bitter and resentful, not fulfilled and happy.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Keroin]

I would never bother doing any "BDSM" with someone I wasn't fucking, so yes.

Word.

 

[Betticus]

Dominance is just plain ol dominance. Sex is nice but it is dominance that I need and it doesn't matter who or what gender I get it from. It's not sexual, it's part of my personality. I also love sex, It's not necessarily tied to dominance but that dominance is sometimes what attracts the ladies. I prefer a deep, intimate sex for my personal fulfullment. When or if she wants the dominance during sex and I am willing then it once again becomes dominance and the sex is just another tool to be used.

I prefer dominance over sex as it is more completely fulfilling. Dominance for me is needed like eating and breathing, sex is a desire that I could live without.

 

[Cattypuss]

BDSM is a sexual thing for me - I do it because it turns me on sexually.

I can have sex without BDSM, but I can't experience BDSM without getting wet.

 

[shamegirl]

BDSM is a sexual thing for me - I do it because it turns me on sexually.

I can have sex without BDSM, but I can't experience BDSM without getting wet.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[LaRocha]

Dom/sub can be within the frame of only the bedroom or something that takes place twenty-four hours a day. Some people live sexualized lives, where each plays their role all day. And it doesn't have to be putting on the ritual, "We are entering a BDSM context now." But most of what we're talking about is the ritualized sex practices that fall under the category of BDSM.

I can imagine a scenario where a sub only wants to be taken care of, and experiences no pleasure from their chores and duties. But I don't see the dom as deriving no pleasure from their role in the same scenario. Do these two people then have plain old missionary sex, leave the context, then enter back into their sub/dom roles afterward? It's unreasonable thinking that the dom and/or sub doesn't carry the day to day pleasure of being a sub/dom into and out of the bedroom.

When you have two people, if one person is deriving sexual pleasure from the acts of the other you have sex. Most men don't necessarily derive sexual pleasure from the chores their wives do for them and vice versa. I'm sure the pleasure I derive from my wife cooking me dinner has some small aspect of power in it, but that doesn't make it BDSM in any way, even if I get a boner from the thought of her service to me.

It's not an intention to make it a circular definition, but if you have BDSM you have sex acts, because if you lose the sexuality you just have plain vanilla interactions going on -- the bit where you derive pleasure from the service, or in servicing a loved one. Even when that service becomes sexualized, it's still a reach entering a BDSM context.

 

[LaRocha]

For BDSM to be emotionally healthy, it must be viewed as a form of intimacy akin to love-making.

For those with dysfunctional attitudes, it is no more intimate than cleaning the toilet.

Healthy BDSM leads to intimate emotional bonding. Dysfunctional (casual) 'bdsm' leads to a lowering of self-esteem, manifesting itself in dysfunctional behaviour (review The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm' for examples of the kinds of personality dysfunctions manifested by those who practice and/or advocate dysfunctional 'bdsm').

BDSM can't be emotionally healthy, can't have the quality of being "emotionally healthy" as BDSM is just a set of sex practices -- same as 'missionary' or 'doggystyle' can't have the quality of being emotionally this or that. "Healthy BDSM" doesn't exist, there are only healthy and unhealthy intimate relationships. No one's shown that casual sex is by definition 'emotionally unhealthy'. I've given you every chance to argue the simplest of arguments, but you are incapable of affirming the antecedent.

 

[Stella_Omega]

BDSM can't be emotionally healthy, can't have the quality of being "emotionally healthy" as BDSM is just a set of sex practices -- same as 'missionary' or 'doggystyle' can't have the quality of being emotionally this or that. "Healthy BDSM" doesn't exist, there are only healthy and unhealthy intimate relationships. No one's shown that casual sex is by definition 'emotionally unhealthy'. I've given you every chance to argue the simplest of arguments, but you are incapable of affirming the antecedent.

Word.

It's like saying "healthy and unhealthy bike racing" or "healthy and unhealthy bridge partners"

 

[Netzach]

Yes it is sexual. Always. I don't think I've ever failed to get turned on doing my thing even if the other person didn't turn me on at all on their own.

That doesn't mean it's sexual *with* the other person. Sometimes it is - and that's the best, but sometimes I get my itch scratched so do they and if they want to get off they can masturbate just as well as I do, I presume.

I was into this model long before I ever did a pro session - most of my play followed this roadmap.

I relate to what Bett said. Didn't someone say something about power and aphrodesiacs?

 

[cfuhrer]

I would never bother doing any "BDSM" with someone I wasn't fucking, so yes.

Chalk up another in this catagory.

 

[00Syd]

I was very confused the first time I heard someone explain how BDSM wasn't a sexual thing. At the time, all I could think was "does not compute," and I'm still confused by that idea.

I mean, of course it's sexual! That's so obvious to me that even taking time out to explain why it's sexual is just like.... why even bother? It's like trying to explain why fire is hot.

 

[fuckmeat]

I mean, of course it's sexual! That's so obvious to me that even taking time out to explain why it's sexual is just like.... why even bother? It's like trying to explain why fire is hot.

Exactly.

The fact that it is an intrinsically sexual thing is why people who don't find BDSM sexually stimulating or gratifying don't practice it. What would be the point?

 

[intothewoods]

Generally speaking, for me, yes, it's sexual. I have had a few sessions though that were definitely more release than sexual. I can get into an impact play session and feel like it's more about endurance. Obviously there is some sexual component, but it's totally different than when I'm with my PYL. Also, the one time I did needle play, it totally did not feel sexual.

 

[Netzach]

I think people get tripped up because they assume sexual is like I have to put a dick in this person sexual. If I'm putting needles into a girl I'm not thinking "wow I have to get with her" I'm turned on because I'm putting needles into her. If I want to get with her that's icing on the donut.

 

[ecstaticsub]

Excellent discussion, thanks Rida.

I don't think BDSM has to be sexual. I think it usually is, but not for everyone in every situation. Within my own D/s relationship everything we do is sexually related one way or another.

However, the one time I got to seriously flog another woman, it wasn't sexual. Yes, we had intimate contact before and after, but flogging her didn't get me wet. It was wicked fun, but not sexual (for me at least). This fact didn't doesn't make it any less it just wasn't sexual for me.