BDSM for Nice Guys

[Sir_Winston54]

I didn't read the whole article, but...

I don't want to think of Sir as a "nice guy." Of course, I know that he's not an ax murderer and he cares about me. But even the idea of s&m with a "nice guy" who is only doing it to give me pleasure....shazam, any magic is gone just thinking about it that way.

-justina

Hmm? justina, I don't know your Sir, but personally, I consider myself - and have been told others consider me - a nice guy who is also a sadist. I don't do s&m "only . . . to give . . . pleasure." I do it because I enjoy giving pain, especially to someone about whom I care deeply. She receives that pain because (1) it pleases me to give it (2) she wants to please me, and (3) she needs it - it's in her emotional/psychosexual makup.

 

[incubus'_sub]

Hi Sir Winston and may we add our congratulations to you & KC as well.

I think that Justina read the original post the same way I did, as a training tool essay for nice guys who would like to please their partners by playing a Dom role. To me she meant that her mind needs her partner to be a real sadist for it to work for her, and I agree. I'd say we both also appreciate that our sadist Masters are indeed gentlemen & nice guys too, but that they do have the desire to hurt the ones they love.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Hi Sir Winston and may we add our congratulations to you & KC as well.

I think that Justina read the original post the same way I did, as a training tool essay for nice guys who would like to please their partners by playing a Dom role. To me she meant that her mind needs her partner to be a real sadist for it to work for her, and I agree. I'd say we both also appreciate that our sadist Masters are indeed gentlemen & nice guys too, but that they do have the desire to hurt the ones they love.

I kind of thought that might be the case, but since I haven't seen much of justina here, threw that out in quest for clarification. Thank you for that

I sometimes question the dichotomies in my nature - the long-term training of an Army officer's son to be gentlemanly versus my sadistic nature; the gentle caring side of myself, often loving to provide soothing massage, or cuddle and watch a movie, versus the side that loves hearing the swish of the cane as it raises another welt and bruise on my darling girl's bare ass... but those questions usually resolve in the realization that I am human and thus do not have just one nature, but several - and that it takes all of them to make me a complete person.

I agree, also that the article appears to be "a training tool essay for nice guys who would like to please their partners by playing a Dom role," but that kind of scares me. "Playing a Dom role" can be dangerous to both of them. If it is not in one's nature to be Dominant (or Master); if one is uncomfortable/unskilled/unwilling to provide one's pyl with the pain/pleasure/sensation she needs, then one cannot have the knowledge and control to do so properly and safely. Yes, BDSM techniques can be learned. No question there - I've learned many techniques from others.

But being Dominant/Master/PYL cannot be learned, IMNSHO. It is an ingrained part of one's nature, or it is not. To pretend to be PYL could be as dangerous to both persons as pretending to be a surgeon when someone needs a heart transplant.

 

[TaintedB]

Originally posted by catalina_francisco
HI Taint,

I am an Internet Security Consultant, something which I have often said on the board, who loves discussions. My speciality is penetration testing, I love calling myself a professional penetration expert… has a nice ring to it, does it not?

Internet crime is rising, anonymity has become extremely simple, hiding your identity is as simple as joining an Anonymous Internet Service, and no, the FBI has tried but they can not force those companies to give their records to them.

Hiding your identity by using IP masking is really an outdated technology which is actually not very effective since nowadays most FW have source routing disabled which makes it almost impossible for IP-masking to work effectively. I am making a guess here but I would say you are in the IT industry?

Here are some interesting links for you.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/john_robinson/
http://www.ifccfbi.gov/strategy/statistics.asp
http://www.cert.org/about/ecrime.html
http://www.anonymization.net/

Francisco.

There's a lot to respond to here but let me ask just one quick question: are you saying that in a _murder_ investigation the FBI can't force an ISP to give up its personal records? How about Homeland Security Dept., if they were investigating a "terrorism" threat? My understanding of the patriot laws that have passed so far is that they have made it much easier for a government organization to obtain peoples' personal records from ISPs.

The last thing I read about this sort of thing, a month or so ago, was a privacy article that was specifically addressing G-mail and Google's lack of a privacy policy, but it touched on a case in which the government had obtained hundreds of records of innocent people from an ISP and they were claiming that because their _computers_ sorted the records, reviewed them for keywords, or whatever, that the individuals' privacy was still intact and protected. You have an opinion on G-Mail? My current policy is that nothing I wouldn't want the whole country knowing about me goes into an email to a g-mail account, lol.

I'll take a look at the links you posted than get back to this conversation. I'm not in IT, I just hear some of the jargon. I can see how being able to completely mask your ID would certainly make money crimes easier--I just don't know about people crimes, because it still seems like such a long, drawnout road for a psycho to follow just to get a victim.

--Taint

 

[incubus'_sub]

LOL, Sir Winston, we'll just have our little chat around the internet stuff. I'm a total dunce where that is concerned.

Oops, I don't know Justina very well either, made an assumption because it seemed to fit my viewpoint. Now that's dangerous !!

I don't really see the pretend "do it to please you" players as very dangerous really. In my experience & there's plenty of this actual situation, the main problem is that they don't play hard enough & to top it off will sometimes stop the activity to ask if it's really OK to do that. They might be a bit awkward with the tools of the trade, but rarely to a degree of serious harm. I'd say that this situation mainly occurs where a sub is in a close relationship with a vanilla partner & has expressed their needs, so usually there will be a basis of trust & care already established which will ensure relative safety.

 

[TaintedB]

Originally posted by incubus'_sub
LOL, Sir Winston, we'll just have our little chat around the internet stuff. I'm a total dunce where that is concerned.

Yeah, yeah we geekies are used to that sort of treatment. (sob)

 

[catalina_francisco]

There's a lot to respond to here but let me ask just one quick question: are you saying that in a _murder_ investigation the FBI can't force an ISP to give up its personal records? How about Homeland Security Dept., if they were investigating a "terrorism" threat? My understanding of the patriot laws that have passed so far is that they have made it much easier for a government organization to obtain peoples' personal records from ISPs.

The last thing I read about this sort of thing, a month or so ago, was a privacy article that was specifically addressing G-mail and Google's lack of a privacy policy, but it touched on a case in which the government had obtained hundreds of records of innocent people from an ISP and they were claiming that because their _computers_ sorted the records, reviewed them for keywords, or whatever, that the individuals' privacy was still intact and protected. You have an opinion on G-Mail? My current policy is that nothing I wouldn't want the whole country knowing about me goes into an email to a g-mail account, lol.

I'll take a look at the links you posted than get back to this conversation. I'm not in IT, I just hear some of the jargon. I can see how being able to completely mask your ID would certainly make money crimes easier--I just don't know about people crimes, because it still seems like such a long, drawnout road for a psycho to follow just to get a victim.

--Taint

I am sure Francisco will answer your questions once he has a moment (on his way to battle the endless traffic jams to work right now) .....lol, and it is wonderful being slave and married to a penetration expert!! His work is fascinating and has become part of the forensic field, and fortunately he is one of the best and has created some ingenius little tools himself which enable things to be done that were not possible before. Unfortunately, despite it being a long drawn out road (though that is not necessarily true once you see subs who submit a day after meeting someone online and it has happened on Lit), there have already been cases of it happening as you will see from reading the fascinating story of Robinson (just for one) or the Slavemaster as he was known. It is a chilling tale and one of many which have become known to happen via internet connections. The quote below from page 8 of the article outlines just why the internet appealed and made it easy for him to obtain his victims. In some part it is no less unbelievable to use the internet as it once was to use newspaper personals etc....often the killer does not bother considering whether detection is possible, some find the drive or their own ego refuse to even consider it possible....and some want to be caught.

'Robinson the Slavemaster was thoroughly at home on the Internet. The anonymity of the medium reduced his need to playact and he easily slipped from his public persona of the kind, loving grandfather who mowed his lawn several times each week and shared gardening chores with his neighbors to a domineering master who demanded total obedience from the slaves who served him over the Web. With just the written word and carefully staged photographs of himself, he was able to charm almost any willing submissive to do his will. At his expense, women interested in the submissive lifestyle would come to Kansas City, some for brief visits and others to spend the rest of their lives. The women who came to stay, lured by his promises of financial support and jobs frequently ended up dead after he no longer needed or wanted them.'

Catalina

 

[James G 5]

Re: Re: Re: Dammit

I read it (the previous post) and since I know your sado-skills run pretty deep I might be able to get into the whimpering thing (from pain...). However sluttish sub behaviour? Nope (though we could try for a weekend or 4)

heh heh heh
kind of like the subbie National guard?
"All we ask is 6 weeks and then one weekend a month"

 

[James G 5]

Respect is *all there is.* It's what makes me different from Elizabeth Bathory.

So you ask politely BEFORE slaughtering your chambermaids for their blood?

 

[catalina_francisco]

Originally posted by TaintedB
There's a lot to respond to here but let me ask just one quick question: are you saying that in a _murder_ investigation the FBI can't force an ISP to give up its personal records? How about Homeland Security Dept., if they were investigating a "terrorism" threat? My understanding of the patriot laws that have passed so far is that they have made it much easier for a government organization to obtain peoples' personal records from ISPs.

--Taint

I hope I will not bore everyone too much, and this is my last post on the subject.

The Internet is global which means if you pass your connection outside of the US, the FBI really does not have much say. Prepaid mobile phones, Internet Cafes and Anonymous Internet Service make it also very hard, almost impossible to trace a person on the internet. You cannot trace a person if they are connecting on the Internet via an Internet cafe and then is using Anonymous Internet Service to hide their identity.

Most security professionals have several ways to hide their identity, make it appear they are in different countries and encrypt their communication to make it impossible to intercept and sniff their messages.

Technically speaking it is almost impossible to track down a person on the internet who knows what they are doing. Yes if you get to know their ISP and it is an ISP which functions in the States or the western world the FBI can force disclosure of the record. However in the past this has lead to nothing, in many cases nine out of the ten cases of the tracked persons were just victims of a hacker who had put remote control software on the PC and was using the victim's connection to hide their own identity.

If you do not have the knowledge, for a small amount of money there are hacker organisations that you can pay to perform this function for you. Most of these organisations are located in Asia making it almost impossible for the government to actually do something against it. There used to be a site http://www.hirehackers.com/ (closed now) where you could actually order a hack online and pay by credit card or send cash to a PO box.

Even with the latest anti-terrorism laws where a person can be prosecuted if they have committed an internet crime in the US wherever they are located in the world it really does not change anything, the security professional will still know how to circumspect detection and hide their tracks and there still will be people out there willing to sell their services for money.

The internet is a very dangerous place and we have all become very dependant on the 'net and the services it is offering. One of the most frustrating things I encounter is the disbelief of even highly trained professionals, it is a very rare occasion where I encounter a company that actually understands the risk of the Internet.

99% of the laws that are being passed to protect the society on the internet are useless in the protection against hackers or even script kiddies. The FBI, the CIA are trying very hard, and yes they have had some remarkable results, but for every person they catch there are 20 out there they have no clue about.

The NSA however, that is a different story.
I can talk about this subject for so long but I will stop boring most of the readers of the forum and take the rest of the discussion offline. If you are interested I can point you to some informative sites, give you some pointers and provide you with information on how to protect yourself.

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

Hi Netzach,

Excuse the delay in responding:

N: Respect is *all there is.* It's what makes me different from Elizabeth Bathory.

It is not overrated.

It is often misplaced.

When I meet someone like that, and there are not as many as online would have you think...when I meet someone like that I relish the latitude to do as I please and in NOT "respecting" them, but respecthing their kink, which others don't respect enough to fulfill....

how does that negate respect?

------

"Respect is *all there is.*" "It is not overrated."

Possibly we're talking about two different things. Respect, or at least 'non harm,' is part of the glue that holds society together, and friends.

However, in many ways, sexual interactions, esp. deviant ones, are in sphere of their own, imo. This view is more or less espoused, above, by Fallon 2, among others. _What happens in the bedroom_ is different. There, the 'nice guy' becomes a insouciant pain inflictor.

Am I saying, *no respect* at all, in the bedroom? No, you mustn't cut the partner up into little pieces, etc. Basic respect for life and health. But aside from that, if sadism is the 'game', let it proceed. Same for sexual aggression.

How about prior to the bedroom (i.e., a term I'll use, for sex): Well, there are laws, for instance, against kidnapping. So you can't grab someone off the street and force him/her into your bedroom.

But 'nice guy' and some posters want global niceness: As typified in the phrase: Was it good for you [the bottom].?

Or typified in phrases, like, Her [the sub's] pleasure is my equal concern (along with my own) or I want *her* to be sexually fulfilled (as an end in itself).

Added: Or, apart from respect in the form of reciprocity, respect as attentiveness: "The master should be attuned to every small sign of upset, so that s/he may change course immediately, if necessary." Or, "The master has a duty towards an upset sub, to 'debrief', hug, re-assure, afterwards, if there's any sign of upset."

This is a misconceived attempt to make social civility and romanticized lovemaking essential for all bedroom interactions.

But let me qualify. There is always a 'romantic' contingent (of persons in this forum), and they are entitled to seek or maintain such encounters, anywhere. Partners mutually fulfilling each other as equals. Robert and Elizabeth Barrett Browning.

It's just 'misconceived' or maybe strange to think this has much to do with 'kink', and SM in particular. To put it a little differently, the 'deviate' urges, as well as the sexual aggressive urge, do NOT have 'respect' built into them; they can't be satisfied 'respectfully,' though of course I advocate staying legal at all times. **
-----

**And as a couple subs, above, have pointed out, even the urge to _undergo_ such acts of deviation or agression, can't be satisfied with someone who's taken his/her 'niceness' into the bedroom.

 

[bridgeburner]

Pure,

I think you're equating "respect" with "reciprocity" which isn't at all what I took Netzach to be talking about.

There are a million and one legal hurts you can inflict on a lover consensually or not. Just because you can legally do something doesn't mean you're not a sociopath for engaging in certain kinds of behaviors.

I don't think you have to be a dyed in the wool son of a bitch just to call yourself a Top. The kind of egocentrism required to be either oblivious to or unconcerned with suffering that one causes is not to my mind indicative of great personal strength but, rather, grounds to suspect serious mental illness.

To inflict suffering without concern for the limits of one's chosen victim, without remorse for hurt inflicted outside the bounds of what was allowed, without ever considering that it is not your right to do so doesn't make one a superior sort of sadist. Sadism doesn't require that one be amoral, only that one derive sexual pleasure from the infliction of pain.


-B

 

[Pure]

bb, the promoters of 'respect everywhere' almost always advocate reciprocity; i.e., it's a sign of respect to treat your desires as important as mine (though different).

there are, of course, many signs of respect, and I've modified, above, to take that into account.

 

[Netzach]

I can't possibly go another round trying to explain it. It makes sense or it doesn't.

What you think is extraneous to SM I say is intergral to it, at least *my* SM.

If you've never had someone licking your hand, eyes wet with love, when you slap his face hard you're not going to get it.

If you feel nothing but a smug sense of hard-on in that situation, you're not going to get it.

 

[bridgeburner]

bb, the promoters of 'respect everywhere' almost always advocate reciprocity; i.e., it's a sign of respect to treat your desires as important as mine (though different).

I haven't noticed a lot of preaching about reciprocity from the likes of Netzach, Rosco and Shadowsdream.

Perhaps I'm not understanding your position so bear with me if I totally fuck it up here, but I get the impression that you see only two choices --- for the Top to really just be a subordinate who weilds the whip at the whim of the bottom with lots of lovey-dovey goo tossed around for good measure OR for the Top to do whatever he damn well pleases without regard for anything except his own pleasure and what the law allows.

I think there's an awful lot of middle ground that's being
discounted in that.


-B

 

[James G 5]

I can't possibly go another round trying to explain it. It makes sense or it doesn't.

What you think is extraneous to SM I say is intergral to it, at least *my* SM.

If you've never had someone licking your hand, eyes wet with love, when you slap his face hard you're not going to get it.

If you feel nothing but a smug sense of hard-on in that situation, you're not going to get it.

My Elizabeth Bathory joke gets no comment?

 

[Netzach]

I let them fold their clothes up and write their relatives first.

 

[James G 5]

I let them fold their clothes up and write their relatives first.

See, that's respect
Mebbe you ARE nice

 

[zombieman]

I'm very glad I found this thread, as my SO has recently admitted a very submissive side. I've known for years she was into the whole BDSM thing, but not as deeply as she is. When she first told me, I was worried about how I was supposed to act. Reading the first post here really helped, and hopefully I can be the Master she wants me to be.
Actually, even reading the thread brought out feelings I never knew I actually had *evil grin*

 

[Pure]

Hi bb,

I said,
bb, the promoters of 'respect everywhere' almost always advocate reciprocity; i.e., it's a sign of respect to treat your desires as important as mine (though different).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you responded:

I haven't noticed a lot of preaching about reciprocity from the likes of Netzach, Rosco and Shadowsdream.

Well, first of all, that's a very atypical sample. Read, for instance the posting that started this thread; doesn't that sound reciprocal in mutual acknowledgement of needs and desires, and 'right to satisfaction'?

Here is Mr. Veaux, elsewhere (where the topic is bdsm in general, not just the 'nice guy' issues:

BDSM what? why? how?
http://www.xeromag.com/fvbdsm.html


in order to be good at doing it [dominating], you need to be highly in-tune with your submissive. People who are self-centered generally make poor dominants, because they lack the empathy required to be able to read and judge their partner's reactions, and bring their partner where that person wants to go. Assholes quickly find that nobody wants to play with them....

{Questioner:}In tune with your submissive? The dominant is the one calling the shots. What does the dominant care about the submissive?

Believe it or not, the dynamics of a BDSM relationship are often
driven by the submissive, not by the dominant. The submissive sets the limits; the submissive decides what places can and can not be explored; the submissive has the ability to call a halt to the scene. The dominant, in many ways, is simply a facilitator....Dominating your partners does not mean that you don't want to please them. It is not always, or even usually, true that a dominant is interested in his own gratification rather than his submissive's. In fact, many dominants are driven as much by their desire to please their partner as by anything else; the psychology of a healthy BDSM relationship is driven by the submissive as well as by the dominant, and a dominant can take pleasure from gratifying the needs of the submissive just as easily as the submissive can take pleasure from gratifying the needs of the dominant. This kind of thing is not one-directional.


The writings of Catalina and Francisco seem to advocate mutual respect and reciprocity-- each getting desire met, each 'coming' during a typical encounter.

See above:

Francisco, :

Being a sadist does not mean you can not have manners, being a nice guy does not make you automatically a pushover, fulfilling the needs of your sub does not mean you are not a good Dominant, negating your own needs and not enjoying what you are doing makes you a bad Dominant. For both partners to fully enjoy each other there needs to be a feedback in the scenes played. A submissive finds much more pleasure when scening with a Dominant, Top, PYL, because there is feedback, because the sub can sense the pleasure of the Dominant and the same applies for the Dominant.

I am sure that most will agree with me that the best scenes they ever have had were those where all involved afterwards had their needs fulfilled and all parties involved had a good night.



Second the people you mention are fairly dissimilar, imo.

My claim was that *those who advocate 'respect everywhere' * (i.e., in the bedroom[sex] and out) mostly advocate reciprocity.

rr, afaik, does not advocate cultivation of 'respect' towards one's sexual partners and/or objects of lechery. indeed, the raskolnikovian persona may lack respect for himself. and i'm unclear what degree of 'respect'--if any-- he wants/expects in return. perhaps only the 'respect' we feel when near a tiger, in a cage, in the zoo.

netzach, otoh, clearly said she wished to respect the kinky partner with whom she's involved, and, at very least--with others[if I read her correctly]-- to respect the 'kink' itself. AND, it almost goes without saying she expects respect coming towards herself, in turn.

i've read a lot of shadowsdream, but I don't really want to propose any 'thumbnail' analysis, here, now, lacking statements from her posted to, or quoted in, this thread.

PS. bb, of course there are gradations in the degree to which someone, e.g., the dom/me takes account of and caters to the feelings and satisfaction of others. I would say Veaux above does so to a high degree. Probably Netzach does less.

 

[Pure]

Netzach said in part:

What you think is extraneous to SM I say is integral to it, at least *my* SM.

If you've never had someone licking your hand, eyes wet with love, when you slap his face hard you're not going to get it.

If you feel nothing but a smug sense of hard-on in that situation, you're not going to get it.

This sounds very wholesome ("integral") and unconflicted. A picture of socialization and psychic health. If I may borrow an idea of rr, what about the 'conflicted' psyche?. (Very common in some kinky folks.)

How does inner conflict arise? There *will be conflict if you, in sexual encounter, genuinely degrade that which you love, admire, or are attracted to.

 

[catalina_francisco]

The writings of Catalina and Francisco seem to advocate mutual respect and reciprocity-- each getting desire met, each 'coming' during a typical encounter.

LOL, you must have missed my 'To Cum or Not To Cum' thread Pure where I brought up the topic of being used without being given pleasure, at least not in the conventional terms you are referring to....there is not always an orgasm for me. Add to that I get my pleasure through being used, hurt, and degraded to levels most would put in the 'way off limits' area, and he enjoys taking me to that level, and it becomes complicated if you are trying to equate it with nicities and reciprocal respect in the traditional sense 100% of the time, but yes, pleasure exists almost always at some point simply because we both get off on the same things...he giving it, I receiving it....sometimes it may take time for me to recover and get my head together to appreciate the pleasure, but it is there in a perverse way. As for overall respect for each other...yes, we have that because we recognise and are grateful to have found another who can completely relate to the other in these and other areas.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

Thanks for explaining, Catalina. No, I haven't read that posting, but I've read thousands of words by each of you.

No relationship fits exactly into a simple category. It does seem that there is, with you and F, *less* sexual reciprocity than Mr. Veaux may have described. To each, his own, or her own.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Maybe reciprocity is too strong a word; a symbiotic relationship might be less rebellious (though that has never stopped you Pure). I do believe that a successful BDSM relationship is beneficial for the parties involved and that the parties involved in the BDSM relationship should get their needs answered. Call it reciprocity or call it symbiotic or maybe just call it life.

The thing is if your needs are not answered get out, if you do not like giving pain, do not try to become a sadist, if you do not like receiving pain, do not try to become a masochist.

Francisco.
PS I have also read thousands of words by you and some very good combinations of words on top of that.

 

[bridgeburner]

Maybe reciprocity is too strong a word; a symbiotic relationship might be less rebellious

Yes. It's the connotation of "reciprocity" that chafes and I willingly admit that I may be reading into it something that Pure does not intend.

Reciprocity to me means tit for tat -- a meticulous and equal parceling out of gestures returned. "If I go down on you for five minutes you have to go down on me for five minutes or it isn't fair." or alternately "If I have more pleasure than my partner I have failed in my responsibility". The idea that the only legitimate state is a constant equality.

I don't value that in an intimate relationship. Hell, I don't value that in a casual friendship. I find it obsessive and petty.

Symbiosis works perfectly for me. Both parties have a need that the other fulfills. The size of that need and the effort expended to get it met varies from time to time, from person to person and certainly from pair to pair. It is the acknowledgement of that need that defines the respect.

-B