Is BDSM intrinsecally sexual?

[intothewoods]

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').

It seems like your theory falls apart here. I get the argument that bdsm is intimate, and therefore for it to be rewarding (or not dysfunctional, as you would argue), you must practice it within the context of a truly intimate relationship. So if I feel intimate feelings towards a person when I do x, and then I do x all the time with strangers, I can see that that would feel very empty. I don't get that it would be irrevocably damaging or anything, but I get that it could be unsatisfying. But I think your argument only makes sense if you believe that we all experience bdsm as an intimate experience, and we are therefore only cheapening the experience by doing it with just anybody.

If you don't experience bdsm as an intimate experience (e.g., just cleaning the toilet), then I don't see how it would be dysfunctional to practice it with someone you're not in love with. If you really get nothing out of it, then the dysfunction would be that you're letting someone hit you! If the sensation just feels good to you -- or even intriguing, like some people enjoy the release from the needles from accupuncture or a vigorous massage or cupping or something -- but power exchange holds no particular appeal, then you could easily do that with a friend without it being some major emotional experience. What's the difference between flogging in a bdsm context and a member of opus dei doing the same to himself? It's all in the headspace. The activity itself is not inherently intimate. It's intimate with my PYL because we have a deeply intimate connection.

 

[intothewoods]

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.

I hear you - but it should turn me on right? I think that particular experience was such a chemical reaction for me that it was not a turn on. I'm not saying it doesn't feel good, but I think I actually could be like an opus dei weirdo in another life. I mean, I get that what's going on is purely chemical, but it almost feels out-of-body. I really can't articulate exactly what the feeling is, but I really, really get into the endurance aspect just for endurance sake. I like that the Top has had a workout and I made it through. Does that make any sense? Is that being turned on in a different way? I just don't think it hits the hot-and-bothered wire, it hits something else.

 

[Netzach]

I hear you - but it should turn me on right? I think that particular experience was such a chemical reaction for me that it was not a turn on. I'm not saying it doesn't feel good, but I think I actually could be like an opus dei weirdo in another life. I mean, I get that what's going on is purely chemical, but it almost feels out-of-body. I really can't articulate exactly what the feeling is, but I really, really get into the endurance aspect just for endurance sake. I like that the Top has had a workout and I made it through. Does that make any sense? Is that being turned on in a different way? I just don't think it hits the hot-and-bothered wire, it hits something else.

Yeah that makes total sense to me and needle bottoming is totally like that for me. I just chalked it up to bottoming being like that for me period "oh whee, huh, weird" - most bottoming I've done has not been with intimate partners and getting a chance to experience my own sense of tough has always been the point. Which isn't super sexual, but can be sexually invigorating sort of.

But topping? I get turned on quieting a room to give the floor to an event, it's verging on lame.

 

[cloud_leopard]

I've experienced BDSM both ways. I've been involved in it where it was sexual in nature, but I've also experienced it when it was not. I enjoy both. As someone mentioned before, there are times when it is simply a release; my partner is able to get me to cry, or go into subspace or just feel like the flogger is stripping away my tension and stress. In those cases, I was not sexually aroused, and as far as I know, neither was he. Both of us enjoyed it, but it was not sexual.

On the other hand, I've been in situations where I was intimately involved with my partner, and there was, indeed sexual arousal, or where I was aroused, but not in a sexual relationship with the person. That was actually satisfying in a different way. It did not feel dysfunctional at all to find that combination of chemistries, that did not, in the end, lead to sex.

So much of this lifestyle is about mental states, and that may or may not lead into sex.

 

[00Syd]

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.

Yes, this.

The only time I could say that I did something BDSM-y that wasn't sexual was when I was really, really, really, REALLY angry this one time, and just wanted to get the shit beaten out of me. So I did, and I cried, and it was a good release, but even then it was still a sort of a sexy thing because Seb was the one beating me up and there was that whole power-y thing going on, and the after care to the scene was sort of hot because he was taking care of me and telling me to shush and to calm down and stuff. And that's hot.

So, yes. I stand by my original statement. Inherently sexual. Or I could just be a pervert, or something, and find things to be sexy that other people wouldn't consider sexy. Oh wait...

 

[Betticus]

I guess it's just different for me then but I think Netz gets where I'm coming from. Domination is intimate, very intimate but it's (for me) a different kind of fulfillment than sex. I can have the sweet love making without domination but it's not as intense and hot and I'm talking about just mild dominating which in that circumstance is just about right. Then that is just great sex.

Then there is just straight, pure domination which is in its own separate mindset. It has its own flavors, colors, energy. The rush of and feeling of immense power is intoxicating and while intimate, while you are almost one with the other person, with a version of what they are going through active in your mind, feeding you information, giving you insight on the outcomes of your next actions it's not necessarily a sex rush but more of a total flush of all of your pleasure centers to include the sexual. That's more of a by-product of the domination rush. If I could put that in a pill I'd be assassinated by the FDA within a matter of days.

It's just not about being sexual beyond what is called up to heighten the domination, used as a tool.

The only other way I can relate to it is with photography. I get a lot of people who think that since I sometimes take sensually intimate photographs that I get turned on during the photoshoot. That is not true, once I am in the "scene" of the shoot my mindset changes and I become a photographer. I'm working. I am concentrating on everything that affects the image, the lighting, angles, the camera settings, posing the model for the desired outcome.... that captured moment in time that is perfect and irreplaceable. I notice the nudity, the beauty of the model, the intimacy of the moment but the drive is for capturing that on camera, not in my pants.

 

[Betticus]

But topping? I get turned on quieting a room to give the floor to an event, it's verging on lame.

<-------------- is guilty with similar circumstances.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I hear you - but it should turn me on right? I think that particular experience was such a chemical reaction for me that it was not a turn on. I'm not saying it doesn't feel good, but I think I actually could be like an opus dei weirdo in another life. I mean, I get that what's going on is purely chemical, but it almost feels out-of-body. I really can't articulate exactly what the feeling is, but I really, really get into the endurance aspect just for endurance sake. I like that the Top has had a workout and I made it through. Does that make any sense? Is that being turned on in a different way? I just don't think it hits the hot-and-bothered wire, it hits something else.

if, in order to be considered sexual, an activity must involve all participants being turned on, then i haven't had many sexual experiences, lol.

i agree with Netz in that most people who say bdsm is not sexual are a bit too focused on specific sexual acts. perhaps a better word than sexual could be "erotic." i am one of those who believe that bdsm is basically sexual/erotic, but i am also one of those who is very very specific about what exactly "bdsm" entails, and what it does not entail. like D/s for example...D/s i view as an entirely separate, unrelated entity from bdsm. D/s imo is more of a lifestyle philosophy based on the dynamic between a Dominant and a submissive individual. bdsm is more about specific activities, ranging from basic bondage to "roleplaying" dominant and submissive roles. bdsm is about what you do, as opposed to who you are. so perhaps because of this specific vision i have of bdsm (which i don't claim to be gospel, just an opinion), i view it as inherently sexual.

 

[eastern sun]

Didn't someone say something about power and aphrodesiacs?

"Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." - Henry Kissinger

(I had a politician friend who mentioned this quote every time I saw him. He had always assumed it meant that power attracted people, until he realized how much the uninhibited expression of power turned him on. )

 

[BiBunny]

S&M is inherently sexual. Just look up the definitions of the words "sadism" and "masochism." The being owned property part (or the owning property part) is not necessarily sexual.

 

[eastern sun]

D/s i view as an entirely separate, unrelated entity from bdsm. D/s imo is more of a lifestyle philosophy based on the dynamic between a Dominant and a submissive individual. bdsm is more about specific activities, ranging from basic bondage to "roleplaying" dominant and submissive roles. bdsm is about what you do, as opposed to who you are. so perhaps because of this specific vision i have of bdsm (which i don't claim to be gospel, just an opinion), i view it as inherently sexual.

I get that D/s exists outside of sexual contexts, but my own experience of D/s within sexual relationships has been that it sexualizes the rest of my activities for as long as I keep generating and cultivating sexual energy. In those periods, I also respond sexually to expressions of dominance in non-sexual contexts.

I also think sexual conditioning (or so-called "training") is a very powerful force. Associating sexual arousal with certain activities (which may not have anything to do with sex itself) has radically changed the chemical landscape of my experience. That's when I get sexually aroused by any adrenalin rush (like a potential car accident) or seemingly mundane chore (like folding the laundry or washing dishes).

 

[Soumis]

Is bdsm intrinsically sexual?

I'd say yes, but I'm going going to go and make a mess of that answer now.

I don't sleep with most people I practice bdsm with. I don't even have, "sexual contact" within traditional definitions with most. Most of my play falls within the BLoved heading of casual. (Which is a term I'm starting to hate on a side note.) I haven't seen, touched, or even spent serious time thinking about the sexual bits of most people I've bdsm'd with. Most of the time if I'm getting a flogging, a caning, a lovely bit of rope, fireplay, I'm naked for the soul purpose of not impeding sensation. The PYL is clothed. We do our respective things and go about better friends and happier for it, but not with intent to follow through sexually together.

Maybe this is odd of me, but honestly sex doesn't even cross my mind with most bdsm folks I meet. I'm much more likely to find someone's ability attractive than their sex potential. I see many PYLs and think, ooo I wonder what wonderful things we can do involving pain, sensation, bondage, and the delicious feeling of helplessness, not I wonder what they're like in bed or what I have to put up with to get them there.

For me, there are varying levels of intimacy involving bdsm and sex depending on the relationship between me and the PYL, not between me and the bdsm. For example: flogging does not equate to sex. Flogging can be foreplay between me and the right person, or it might be the end game itself. I can have an intimate challenging sub space inducing beating from someone regardless of whether or not we'll be in the same bed afterward. Depends on the relationship, not the means of communicating.

That being said, I do find different aspects of bdsm require different levels of intimacy. The more intimate I find a given aspect, the more likely I am to be in a sexual relationship with the PYL using said technique. D/s I find to be terribly intimate. I can use casual terms in scene out of politeness or respect for the PYL's position, but if we're going to be delving the deeper workings of my submissive pysche there's probably sex involved. Not because the D/s is sexual per se, but because if we're on that intimacy level in our bdsm, we're probably on that level in other physical terms.

Honestly, I know that I come off as a bit of an odd duck, a lightweight, a "casual" scener - heaven forbid! But my brain really doesn't leap from bdsm to sex, other than the fact that I can be aroused by said activities. Most of the time after bdsm I'm thinking, "that was really fantastic," not, "sex me!" I can enjoy bdsm plenty with or without sexual gratification. I'm not sure that all came out right, but there's my two cents!

 

[intothewoods]

if, in order to be considered sexual, an activity must involve all participants being turned on, then i haven't had many sexual experiences, lol.

i agree with Netz in that most people who say bdsm is not sexual are a bit too focused on specific sexual acts. perhaps a better word than sexual could be "erotic." i am one of those who believe that bdsm is basically sexual/erotic, but i am also one of those who is very very specific about what exactly "bdsm" entails, and what it does not entail. like D/s for example...D/s i view as an entirely separate, unrelated entity from bdsm. D/s imo is more of a lifestyle philosophy based on the dynamic between a Dominant and a submissive individual. bdsm is more about specific activities, ranging from basic bondage to "roleplaying" dominant and submissive roles. bdsm is about what you do, as opposed to who you are. so perhaps because of this specific vision i have of bdsm (which i don't claim to be gospel, just an opinion), i view it as inherently sexual.

I don't see why erotic is any more accurate than sexual, unless we're just talking about the fact that something can be sexual without involving contact to your genitals. In that case, sure. My point is just that sometimes certain bdsm activities turn me on and sometimes it's about a different switch - part service, part need to please, part endurance... I don't know.

I also see D/s as different from bdsm activities, but D/s is also sexual to me in that it's part of my sexual identity and it does turn me on.

 

[ImOnIt]

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.

Right, topping is hot in itself. Because of the relationship and interaction. Sexual feeling sure. But I can have a charged relationship with some people I don't plan to bone.

 

[LaRocha]

I think we're getting muddled between BDSM and normal dominant and subordinate interactions. There are plenty of bosses out there that take serious pleasure in telling you what to do and watching you do it. It's possible to be in a sub/dom relationship with someone and continually fall in and out of the BDSM context.

But if someone's your sub all day long and something they do doesn't give you a special tingle in that moment, it's still part of the overall sexualized picture, likely those menial chores will give you a tingle in the overt interaction at some other point. Often a punishment comes from a menial chore done tardy or incorrectly.

Just by consensus definitions(wiki, dictionaries) BDSM always includes sex.

There's sadism and masochism under the broadest definitions, "That dude's a sadist, he killed him with a tire iron instead of the gun." "That girl's a masochist, she keeps going back to the guy, knowing he's going to beat her up again."

But s/m falling under categorical BDSM, is entirely sexual stuff. It's important remembering that a sex act doesn't have to be pleasurable(feel like a sex act) for both parties.

 

[fuckmeat]

.....

 

[rida]

I'll borrow ownedsubgal definition of BDSM as indicating activities, what you do, as opposed to D/s or M/s and relationship dynamic. It make it easier to discuss the whole subject.

So my answer is: yes.

BDSM started as an add-on in the bedroom for me and evolved from there, so perhaps my beginning is biasing my views. Also beside the rope bondage shoot I did early this year, BDSM activities are always whitin a D/s or M/s contest and are 90% of the time followed by some kind of sex. That being said, sex is not for me but for my PYL's enjoyment, a continuation and/or conclusion of the BDSM activities. So unless it is a forced orgasm session or I ask and get permission, my sexual pleasure has no part in it.

But even thought I do not get aroused or turned on per se, I've noticed that when there is no sex at the end, it feels harder to decompress and I need more after-care if I'm to avoid heavy sub-drop. (after care being not necessarily cuddles).

 

[where]

totally sexual for me. plus in my non-sexual sphere, I'm pretty dominant. BDSM not only lets me get the sex that gets me off, but lifts the burdon of day to day life from me.

 

[Betticus]

I don't feel the same way the rest of you do. I'll just back away from this discussion.

 

[where]

The only other way I can relate to it is with photography. I get a lot of people who think that since I sometimes take sensually intimate photographs that I get turned on during the photoshoot. That is not true, once I am in the "scene" of the shoot my mindset changes and I become a photographer. I'm working. I am concentrating on everything that affects the image, the lighting, angles, the camera settings, posing the model for the desired outcome.... that captured moment in time that is perfect and irreplaceable. I notice the nudity, the beauty of the model, the intimacy of the moment but the drive is for capturing that on camera, not in my pants.

I get that. I'm married to a photographer and there is a definite switch which goes on when he's photographing me (and I am and so far always have been, his only model).


but... your last post would intimate that everyone finds BDSM sexual but you don't, seems to contradict your first post. there you say:

Then there is just straight, pure domination which is in its own separate mindset. It has its own flavors, colors, energy. The rush of and feeling of immense power is intoxicating and while intimate, while you are almost one with the other person, with a version of what they are going through active in your mind, feeding you information, giving you insight on the outcomes of your next actions it's not necessarily a sex rush but more of a total flush of all of your pleasure centers to include the sexual. That's more of a by-product of the domination rush. If I could put that in a pill I'd be assassinated by the FDA within a matter of days.

which in a sense is kinda sexual as well because that kind of confidence and power is, in itself, sexually attractive and sexually charged, is it not? Or maybe I'm just too obsessed about sex and see it everywhere.

 

[MisterSir]

I would say yes it is if I had anything more constructive to add to the thread. Unfortunately, that's all I've got - I find it sexual, that's all.

 

[sb2009]

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.

Word. Even times when there is no "sex" I still get wet and horny. I just don't get relief, damn him and his torturous ways!

but hey, whatever floats the ol' boat. If you want your BDSM to be non-sexual, go for it. I'm for whatever makes people happy, man. Peace out.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

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

Word. Even times when there is no "sex" I still get wet and horny. I just don't get relief, damn him and his torturous ways!

God, that happens to me all the time. And I'm not even feeling particularly aroused sexually. Just content, in a happy place, used = soaking wet and satisfied.

 

[BLoved]

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.

I think this makes my point quite well:

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.

That is an example of an emotionally healthy BDSM relationship.

The Little Things

The way she looks at you when she thinks you're not looking.

The way her hair smells when she rests her head on your chest.

The way your heart hurts every time you think of her, and the way it hurts every time you're near her.

The way you feel anger towards those who have hurt her, and the way you feel gratitude towards those who have helped her.

The way she laughs, the way she smiles, the way she sleeps in your arms at night.

The little things mean so much ...

 

[fuckmeat]

That is an example of an emotionally healthy BDSM relationship.

The Little Things

The way she looks at you when she thinks you're not looking.

The way her hair smells when she rests her head on your chest.

The way your heart hurts every time you think of her, and the way it hurts every time you're near her.

The way you feel anger towards those who have hurt her, and the way you feel gratitude towards those who have helped her.

The way she laughs, the way she smiles, the way she sleeps in your arms at night.

The little things mean so much ...

They do and I do appreciate the sentiment.

Having said that, I do not agree with your zealous belief that all casual forms of BDSM are emotionally unhealthy and therefore harmful. G has suggested and encouraged me to find a casual play-partner, she has even browsed BDSM personals for me, because she wants me to be happy and she knows how much caring for her can take out of me. I posted a BDSM Personals ad here myself a little while ago looking for a casual play-partner but I have since decided that it's not the right time for me to do this. By casual, I'm thinking of someone I can build some trust with and see on a regular basis. More of a FWB that I can enjoy meals, drinks and play with. It will probably happen at some point in the not too distant future but G has left it entirely to my own discretion.

So, while I am very pleased and flattered that the love in our dynamic comes through in my posts, I don't like you holding us up as an example to illustrate an opinion with which neither G or myself would agree.

And I don't mean for this to be a hijack. The last thing I'd want is to turn this thread into a rerun of the 'Ethics of casual BDSM' one.