❓ Inquiring Minds Want To Know - Discussion Thread

[PrettyLilPussy19]

#7 - Early!

#7
(submitted)
Physical, mental or emotional attraction.
Can BDSM be 'done' without one of those things? Should it be done without one of those things?
Can it be done with none of those? Should it be done with none of those?

*The biggest thank you to all that submitted questions! There are some really fascinating topics coming up!*

 

[wicked woman]

#7
(submitted)
Physical, mental or emotional attraction.
Can BDSM be 'done' without one of those things? Should it be done without one of those things?
Can it be done with none of those? Should it be done with none of those?

*The biggest thank you to all that submitted questions! There are some really fascinating topics coming up!*

Strange questions, in my opinion. As long as the parties are consenting, why couldn't some hypothetical parties decide to partake without one or all of those attractions. Say at a play party, doing a bondage scene. Why would you need a physical, mental, or emotional attraction? Just someone wanting to improve their bondage techniques and a willing bondage bunny or an experienced bondage rigger and someone who wants to experience being tied up. Or someone who submits for an evening to participate in a high protocol dinner?

As for 'should', I don't think it's for me to pass judgement over how others choose to participate in BDSM.

If you want to make the question personal though...'would you' partake of BDSM without one or all of physical, mental, or emotional attraction?...the answer is no. But that's because I prefer to participate in BDSM within an intimate relationship and those attractions are a part of an intimate relationship for me...whether BDSM-related or not. I submit to very few, not even all intimate relationships. I don't play with people. Don't experience BDSM techniques outside of an intimate relationship. Just my preference though.

 

[AlwaysFara]

Strange questions, in my opinion. As long as the parties are consenting, why couldn't some hypothetical parties decide to partake without one or all of those attractions. Say at a play party, doing a bondage scene. Why would you need a physical, mental, or emotional attraction? Just someone wanting to improve their bondage techniques and a willing bondage bunny or an experienced bondage rigger and someone who wants to experience being tied up. Or someone who submits for an evening to participate in a high protocol dinner?

As for 'should', I don't think it's for me to pass judgement over how others choose to participate in BDSM.

If you want to make the question personal though...'would you' partake of BDSM without one or all of physical, mental, or emotional attraction?...the answer is no. But that's because I prefer to participate in BDSM within an intimate relationship and those attractions are a part of an intimate relationship for me...whether BDSM-related or not. I submit to very few, not even all intimate relationships. I don't play with people. Don't experience BDSM techniques outside of an intimate relationship. Just my preference though.

We have all been answering from a personal standpoint.
What I think is strange is that you thought this was hypothetical.

 

[wicked woman]

We have all been answering from a personal standpoint.
What I think is strange is that you thought this was hypothetical.

The earlier questions were written to request a personal response. 'Can' and 'should' are not necessarily personal questions. Can you and should you are.

Edited to add: It sounds like the questions might have been yours AlwaysFara and you took offence to my comments. If that's the case, I apologize as it was not my intent.

While my reading comprehension is quite good, I admit that I am often literal in my reading and use of words, as my profession requires it. Can BDSM be done without...is a very different question than can you, or more likely would/do you, practice BDSM without... I answered the questions that were asked and then went on to answer it from a personal perspective.

*Trying not to feel that this was an unwelcoming response, on a thread whose purpose it is to encourage discussion, especially since I rarely post any more. Will assume it's because I offended AlwaysFara*

 

[AlwaysFara]

The earlier questions were written to request a personal response. 'Can' and 'should' are not necessarily personal questions. But feel free to interpret my comment/opinion as you please.

I did.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

We have all been answering from a personal standpoint.
What I think is strange is that you thought this was hypothetical.

I read the question the same way WW did. I’d answer very similarly, too. I absolutely think BDSM play can, does, and should be done without physical and emotional attraction, but I also know that I would not be able to play that way. People do, and it works for them, so good on them.

 

[seela]

Nope.

 

[AlwaysFara]

The earlier questions were written to request a personal response. 'Can' and 'should' are not necessarily personal questions. Can you and should you are.

Edited to add: It sounds like the questions might have been yours AlwaysFara and you took offence to my comments. If that's the case, I apologize as it was not my intent.

While my reading comprehension is quite good, I admit that I am often literal in my reading and use of words, as my profession requires it. Can BDSM be done without...is a very different question than can you, or more likely would/do you, practice BDSM without... I answered the questions that were asked and then went on to answer it from a personal perspective.

*Trying not to feel that this was an unwelcoming response, on a thread whose purpose it is to encourage discussion, especially since I rarely post any more. Will assume it's because I offended AlwaysFara*

You didn’t.

At all.
Please post.

I just never even considered the questions rhetorical. That’s all.

 

[AlwaysFara]

I read the question the same way WW did. I’d answer very similarly, too. I absolutely think BDSM play can, does, and should be done without physical and emotional attraction, but I also know that I would not be able to play that way. People do, and it works for them, so good on them.

I wish my tone would have conveyed that I truly didn’t see the rhetorical thing, not offense.
Sorry about that, TPH and WW.

 

[AlwaysFara]

#7
(submitted)
Physical, mental or emotional attraction.
Can BDSM be 'done' without one of those things? Should it be done without one of those things?
Can it be done with none of those? Should it be done with none of those?

*The biggest thank you to all that submitted questions! There are some really fascinating topics coming up!*

I know I have a few friends who are littles that want Daddy to be their guardian or mentor. In most of their cases, I think it’s sexual, but not always.

I’m speaking about tops and bottoms the other day, I mentioned another friend who tops to perfect his rope tying technique, but does not Dom the woman he’s with.

For me, this is all unchartered territory.
I wanted BDSM because the thought of it aroused me. Because I thjigt it was something I was always missing.
If I’m sexually attracted and there is no emotionally connection, we won’t connect, we won’t be friends.
It always comes down to the relationship. If I don’t like you, I won’t submit to you, simple as that.

Edited to add, when I first got here, and knew nothing, I did try. Without the emotion. Or being physically attracted. Just to have the experience. But it just didn’t work. And now I know what I need and want. That’s the connection.

 

[Paul_Chance]

#7
(submitted)
Physical, mental or emotional attraction.
Can BDSM be 'done' without one of those things? Should it be done without one of those things?
Can it be done with none of those? Should it be done with none of those?

*The biggest thank you to all that submitted questions! There are some really fascinating topics coming up!*

I'll give this one a qualified "yes".

A bit of deeper background that forms my answer. As a general sexual ethic as long as the sex act involves consenting partners (even CNC), we should develop a healthy attitude toward sex. A fulfilling sex life, however you define it, is an important part of healthy and fulfilling life.

There's a dividing line between a kink and a fetish. Think of it this way - a kink is a sexual variation that occurs inside the primary relationship. The attraction and connection is with the partner(s) and the sex acts occur inside of that primary relationship. A fetish is when the attraction is to the act itself and the partner is almost irrelevent.

An example would be a person who is aroused by and finds sexual satisfaction in whipping or being whipped. Think for a moment about your own "act(s)" that fall within the BDSM spectrum. Are you aroused by the partner you engage in the act with or, in your imagination, is the partner interchangeable or irrelevant? Is the arousal born in "I am being whipped/whipping by X" or is the arousal born in "I am being whipped/whipping"? The first is a kink, the second is a fetish. Is it the whole complex dynamic of a BDSM relationship or is the smell of leather, the feel of it on flesh, sweet sting/swing of the whip, and that scent of fear and arousal?

If you fall into the "fetish" category, then yes, you can and should pursue the fetish with consenting partners, often found in BDSM clubs or sex clubs, where the sex verges on being anonymous partners because the focus/arousal is the act itself. If you don't care who is doing the whipping or who is being whipped, then by all means find that sexual outlet and pursue it.

(As an aside, I often think that is where many relationships, not just in BDSM, but outside of it as well, ultimately fail - when one partner has a kink and the other partner has a fetish. Each is going to pursue their needs - for the first, that is a relationship that includes BDSM, for the second, that is a relationship with BDSM itself. Get those wires crossed and it's not going to work. Get the wires lined up and you'll find your own happiness. The first will fall apart when the relationship comes under stress and for whatever reason BDSM falls off the table for a period of time. The second will be able to weather the storms of life. For myself, I've played in both worlds and I prefer the relationship that includes some aspects of BDSM, though I am capable of the classic BDSM "scene", where it's the act, not the person, that matters more.

Edited to add that AlwaysFara and I were posting at the same time and her answer perfectly illustrated what I am answering, LOL, in a lot fewer words.)

 

[PrettyLilPussy19]

This ^^^ was extremely enlightening. I've never been able to clearly differentiate between kink and fetish.
Thanks Paul!

 

[midwestyankee]

#7
(submitted)
Physical, mental or emotional attraction.
Can BDSM be 'done' without one of those things? Should it be done without one of those things?
Can it be done with none of those? Should it be done with none of those?

*The biggest thank you to all that submitted questions! There are some really fascinating topics coming up!*

Note, I too read this as more hypothetical than personal. Thus, anything *can* work for some people. Hell, isn't there a famed Internet Law stating that if you can imagine a kink, there's a website somewhere that's dedicated to it? Should, though, carries the weight of moral responsibility and that's a challenge.

So...pour moi: I've tried BDSM with only physical attraction, with mostly mental attraction, and with deep and enduring emotional attachment. By far, it works best for me when the latter is the case. I am a fan of the mindfuck, so it's imperative that I know my partner well in order to fuck with her mind most effectively for both of our pleasure. In many ways - and I think this answers at least part of an earlier question - the state of mind that matters most to me in BDSM is devotion. That it is through our D/s that we act on our devotion to each other. BDSM is how I love best, and it's fundamentally more satisfying when there is a deep emotional attraction and attachment. Physical attraction helps a good bit, but it's a role player on this team where emotional attachment is the outright star, and mental attraction is the star's best partner.

 

[Ed27R]

I mostly believe that you can’t have it without all 3. But that is just my view on what a BDSM relationship and well relationships in general should be. Of course this is an increadibly narrow personal view of it - so take that for what it is worth.

 

[cascadiabound]

#7
(submitted)
Physical, mental or emotional attraction.
Can BDSM be 'done' without one of those things? Should it be done without one of those things?
Can it be done with none of those? Should it be done with none of those?

*The biggest thank you to all that submitted questions! There are some really fascinating topics coming up!*

It has been really interesting to me to read all of your responses. I found myself generally agreeing with Wicked Woman's response and thought I did not have much more to add initially, but I have been reflecting on the spectrum of how literally different people read things off the screen. In the context of this thread, I presumed that the question should probably be reframed into the the personal context even though it was framed in the abstract, but it has been fascinating to me how many of you read it to respond *as written* (which were this a blue book exam, I would carefully examine the verbs and structure of the questions, to be sure I answered the questions precisely, otherwise my response might disqualify me or at least get me a poor mark... however... this is a discussion not a blue book exam.)

In any case... for me personally, I have found that I cannot have either an intimate relationship, let alone a BDSM based relationship without all three components present to date. However, I can imagine a scenario in which in order to get a need met (for instance - a need to be spanked or flogged) - I might engage in that activity in a non- sexualized setting with someone with whom I trusted, but did not have all three components with... maybe sort of analogous to getting a massage? Idk.

 

[midwestyankee]

In any case... for me personally, I have found that I cannot have either an intimate relationship, let alone a BDSM based relationship without all three components present to date. However, I can imagine a scenario in which in order to get a need met (for instance - a need to be spanked or flogged) - I might engage in that activity in a non- sexualized setting with someone with whom I trusted, but did not have all three components with... maybe sort of analogous to getting a massage? Idk.

I took the question as if each of the three factors listed were either exclusively the reason to relate to a partner in a BDSM way, or primarily so. Thus my response that I’d tried a BDSM relationship where the sole reason for being was a physical attraction, and so on. In truth, I think it’s unlikely that any intimate/sexual relationship of any kind could long endure without at least some of each source of attraction and attachment.

 

[PuckIt]

#7
(submitted)
Physical, mental or emotional attraction.
Can BDSM be 'done' without one of those things? Should it be done without one of those things?
Can it be done with none of those? Should it be done with none of those?

*The biggest thank you to all that submitted questions! There are some really fascinating topics coming up!*

Well... I was once again planning on keeping my fingers braided. Only I really was this time.

Let's just say that there is a particular episode in my past that this question sparked a memory of, when none of the three were involved and yet I still engaged in sexual BDSM with someone I had not the slightest attraction to, and leave it at that if we can. It's not a memory I'm particularly proud of, that I basically used her as little more than a masturbation aid without the slightest care of what, if anything, she might have gotten out of it for three days. And never even bothered to learn her name.

And Paul's response pretty much nailed down 90% of what I would have had to say anyway.

About the only thing I haven't seen mentioned in any of the responses is the potential for an platonic BDSM relationship. The way some of it can bleed over into a friendship without the slightest sexual tension, even amongst same-sex friends when there aren't the slightest homoerotic leanings on the part of either involved.


Which, on the surface, seems just irrational. I mean, isn't BDSM actually about sex? How the fuck, then, could one engage in consensual non-sexual BDSM?


Well, I will grant that most of my experiences of such were much more D/s than S&M. (Although, there may have been some bondage from time to time up to and including Smith and Wesson chained handcuffs...)


*shrug*


And I don't know. Maybe I'm just strange that I can look back across the decades and see incidents from my checkered past that were not sexual in nature, but were related (somewhat) to one of the facets of BDSM.


So, I don't know. For me, I think I would say that it's much more about the sexual intimacy that would require the three attractions listed than so much the BDSM. And, yeah. My responses to that long ago incident probably play more than a small part in that.


And if I have gone completely off the reservation on this one;


"We will make amends ere long;
Else the Puck a liar call;
So, good night unto you all.
Give me your hands, if we be friends,
And Robin shall restore amends.”

- William Shakespeare

 

[PrettyLilPussy19]

#7
(submitted)
Physical, mental or emotional attraction.
Can BDSM be 'done' without one of those things? Should it be done without one of those things?
Can it be done with none of those? Should it be done with none of those?

*The biggest thank you to all that submitted questions! There are some really fascinating topics coming up!*

First let me say the question was submitted - and I thought it was really interesting but I should have added to it for clarification. My favorite thing about this thread is how we all interpret the questions differently based on our experience and just the way our brains work. I don't think there is any real right or wrong answers. When I read the question, I had a totally different take on it because of my experiences and feelings, etc. And sometimes putting feelings into words is very fucking difficult for me so bear with me on this struggle bus.

I'll take them one by one because to me - physical, mental, emotional - they are all incredibly separate things.

Physical attraction -
For me physical attraction is nice - but not necessary. Mostly because, I find, that if we can't talk about something other than dicks and tits - literally ANY other thing! - then I won't find you very interesting and therefore not very attractive. Of course, any kind of sex (kink or otherwise) can be had without physical attraction but I think physical desire is important.
I read this part of the question with what my partner thought of me instead of the other way around. Probably because of my own insecurities, I have a tendency to see attraction in black & white. Either, you are attracted to me or you are repulsed by me. I've made the point on another thread that I don't look (even remotely) like your average gif girl or ideal submissive. So for me to be comfortable enough to let go, I need to feel like you are into my particular brand of sexy, physically.

Mental -
This is probably the most important connection. I don't think BDSM should (or maybe even can) be done without this. How can you have trust? Feel safe? Feel powerful? Any of that without being on the same mental level. Just the simple feeling of curiosity (What will she do when I say/do this? What is he thinking? Can she? Will he?) and, again, desire is fueled mentally for me. If you can make me think and laugh... yeah, just try and get rid of me. (kidding!)

Emotional -
This is a bit stickier for me. I think I've found the emotions AFTER the event. Good and bad. I read somewhere on these boards a while ago about someone that was in a D/s relationship but then fell in love with his sub and found it hard to do all the things he once liked to do to her because he cared. I can relate to a degree. It's so hard to explain. I'm really lacking the words. I have had an emotional connection to a man AFTER the Dom experience but I find it hard to let a man with whom I already share an emotional connection truly Dom me... That makes no sense but I have no idea how to explain it. I think it has something to do with respect.

I know there were different takes on this question but I really liked it personally. It was a thinker. I'm sure I'll be pondering it for awhile. I hope any of that made sense.

 

[Paul_Chance]

PLP - great answers. I am going to segue off of them this fine Friday morning and answer the questions from a purely personal level. BDSM, like most sexually oriented activities or life-styles, has two component - one is the general (about the community in general, about people you know and have interacted with, about what you have observed) and the other is specific - what starts your engine running, what keeps it running.

On that note, on the personal side of my card, I am going to talk to each a bit in the order of importance to me, when it comes to relationship.

Mental:

I'm drawn to and fall in love with people who have a working mind. People who are watching the world, participating in the world and doing it with thought, with introspection, with wonder and curiosity. I love it when the mind is always working, always wondering, always exploring. For me to connect, except for fleeting affairs and ships passing in the night, it's the mind that I fall in love with, that keeps me engaged, that keeps me coming back for more. Within the BDSM sphere that usually plays itself out in the form of a willingness to explore themes and variations on themes, indeed an eagerness to engage in the exploration and to share the experience beyond the physicality - to talk about it, to write about it, to wonder about it.

Physical:

Beauty is an amazing thing. It takes the ten thousand forms, ranging from the classical interpretation of beauty (that beauty is culture free, that all people recognize beauty) all the way down to the sublime beauty, the beauty of small things. I'm not so much drawn, sexually, to classic forms of beauty, though I admire them. I am drawn, intensely, to the sublime and small aspects of beauty - a grace in movement, a certain curve, a certain way of being touched. Classic beauty (or pop culture beauty) are fleeting things and, except in the rarest of cases, the result of the endless game of light and shadow, of angles and make-up and lens. Beautiful, but ultimately illusion. I try not to love the illusion. A persons physical beauty might catch my eye, I might admire them, in the way a spectator stands before "Girl with a Pearl Earring" and admires her. Without that mental connection, without that divine spark, without that curiosity and amazement, my admiration for physical beauty fades quickly. (There are rare exceptions, there are people who though the grace of the genetic code meet the classic definition of beauty - they simply are beauty.)

Emotional:

LOL - and now the bad news. I'm not emotionally dead, but I am emotionally damaged. Because of the circumstances of my life, I generally don't seem to experience emotional attachments like most people in this regard - everything is fleeting. Everything fades. Anything and everything can be taken from you or lost to you in the twinkling of an eye. So, my emotional experiences tend to be firmly rooted in the moment and tend not to be attached (in the zen buddhist sense). Be in the intensity of the moment - but the long tale of emotions fades very quickly for me and I return to my natural state, which I call a sort of bemused indifference to life in general. I am a solid friend, a generous lover, but I am not your soulmate (don't believe in them) and I am not your salvation (god is within you, save yourself). I'll happily help a person work on exploring themselves, sexually, in BDSM and other spheres, but in the end you've got to do your own work. I'll be happy to take the journey with you, but I can't and won't take it for you.

 

[PrettyLilPussy19]

#7.5

As a follow up to this week's question, I'd like to ask -

Have you ever been mentally/sexually attracted to someone you weren't at all physically attracted to? How did you handle it?

 

[AlwaysFara]

As a follow up to this week's question, I'd like to ask -

Have you ever been mentally/sexually attracted to someone you weren't at all physically attracted to? How did you handle it?

Fuck yes.
I adjusted. I saw the beauty in them once I fell for them.
I’m lucky now, because I’m very physically attracted as well as my being mind and heart being fully engaged.

However, there was someone I was very mentally engaged with and not physically attracted to at all. He was very Dommy, so I was I intrigued. When we ended, after a month, it was much easier to get over him. I’m not sure if it was because he was a jerk, or because once the mental part ended, there was nothing else there? And the mental part ended, because, when I got to know him, he wasn’t who he portrayed himself as.

I need some sort of physical chemistry on some level, but mental connection is by far the most important.

I think I do need eyes. The look. That look. Ladies, you know the look?

 

[PrettyLilPussy19]

The look and the tone of voice change. Grrr...

I think physical chemistry and attraction can be different.

 

[AlwaysFara]

The look and the tone of voice change. Grrr...

I think physical chemistry and attraction can be different.

Yes.
Like, I’m cute. I’m not ugly.
HE thinks I’m beautiful.
Because we have chemistry. He loves me. He sees all of me and it fits him.

But, really. I’m cute.

 

[PrettyLilPussy19]

Yes.
Like, I’m cute. I’m not ugly.
HE thinks I’m beautiful.
Because we have chemistry. He loves me. He sees all of me and it fits him.

But, really. I’m cute.

Well. 1. From what I've seen you are both cute and beautiful.

2. I think this is part of what I like about emotional sadism. I feel like men (yes, sorry guys) will tell you any beautiful thing to either, get in your unmentionables or to try and make you feel better about yourself. But I would love someone to just be bluntly honest with me. Someone I trust and want to - "Yes, you aren't perfect. I would change x y z about you but I still want to fuck you into the mattress."

3. But there is something nice about knowing someone is just into your brand of sexy and finds you desirable just the way you are.

 

[AlwaysFara]

Well. 1. From what I've seen you are both cute and beautiful.

2. I think this is part of what I like about emotional sadism. I feel like men (yes, sorry guys) will tell you any beautiful thing to either, get in your unmentionables or to try and make you feel better about yourself. But I would love someone to just be bluntly honest with me. Someone I trust and want to - "Yes, you aren't perfect. I would change x y z about you but I still want to fuck you into the mattress."

3. But there is something nice about knowing someone is just into your brand of sexy and finds you desirable just the way you are.

Better said, and more universal.