Girls who love being called SLUTS

[JMohegan]

Dominance is associated with telling it like it is, and calling a girl a "slut" is a surefire assertion of dominance...

This may be true for you and your partners, but it is not true for me and mine.

I have never called a partner "slut", and have no desire to do so.

Do I want a partner who is passionate in my bed? Absolutely. Submissive, obedient, eager to please? Damn straight.

Sexually promiscuous? No.

This is not a moral issue, as I see it. It is simply a matter of personal preference.

But the main point to be made here is that wanting to call or be called "slut" has absolutely nothing to do with dominance and submission per se.

 

[snowy ciara]

Unless humiliation is on one's bdsm menu. In that case, humiliating nicknames like "slut" or "whore" are part of the regular diet. Just because it's not your thing, (or mine for that matter, because I don't like humiliation play either) doesn't mean it's not valid.

 

[CutieMouse]

This may be true for you and your partners, but it is not true for me and mine.

I have never called a partner "slut", and have no desire to do so.

Do I want a partner who is passionate in my bed? Absolutely. Submissive, obedient, eager to please? Damn straight.

Sexually promiscuous? No.

This is not a moral issue, as I see it. It is simply a matter of personal preference.

But the main point to be made here is that wanting to call or be called "slut" has absolutely nothing to do with dominance and submission per se.

What he said.

 

[JMohegan]

Unless humiliation is on one's bdsm menu. In that case, humiliating nicknames like "slut" or "whore" are part of the regular diet. Just because it's not your thing, (or mine for that matter, because I don't like humiliation play either) doesn't mean it's not valid.

Clearly, both humiliation and promiscuity are valid staples on many bdsm menus.

But neither of them are intrinsic aspects of D/s itself. Hence my comment that the slut label "has absolutely nothing to do with dominance and submission per se."

 

[barebacknubianf]

This may be true for you and your partners, but it is not true for me and mine.

I have never called a partner "slut", and have no desire to do so.

Do I want a partner who is passionate in my bed? Absolutely. Submissive, obedient, eager to please? Damn straight.

Sexually promiscuous? No.

This is not a moral issue, as I see it. It is simply a matter of personal preference.

But the main point to be made here is that wanting to call or be called "slut" has absolutely nothing to do with dominance and submission per se.

Nothing to do with dominance and submission per se, no; but we aren't talking about dominance and submission per se: We're talking about the use of the word "slut" in a D/s context. I don't want to start treading on anybody's toes - heaven forefend I start spouting about the ins and outs of the D/s community (if such a thing exists) - I was just talking about why I get off on being called a slut and how that probably has something to do with my 'submissive' instincts. Not everybody reacts the same way I do, and fair enough.

 

[barebacknubianf]

Clearly, both humiliation and promiscuity are valid staples on many bdsm menus.

But neither of them are intrinsic aspects of D/s itself. Hence my comment that the slut label "has absolutely nothing to do with dominance and submission per se."

I can understand why your hackles might be raised if people automatically associate the use of the word "slut" with the D/s lifestyle and take it as integral. But I don't think anybody does do that. I might be wrong. Do they?

 

[JMohegan]

I can understand why your hackles might be raised if people automatically associate the use of the word "slut" with the D/s lifestyle and take it as integral. But I don't think anybody does do that. I might be wrong. Do they?

First off, my hackles aren't raised. I'm just joining in the discussion here.

You wrote a statement with which I disagreed, so I put forth a different point of view.

Let's look at your statement again, this time in the full paragraph:

2. More importantly, it shows he's in control. I might be shouted down here, but I really think that, deep down inside, most women react in a more basic and intense way to a man who "knows what he wants" than they do to somebody fawning and sensitive. It's just biology, I think. Even if women don't like a man to be dominant in all aspects of their life, plenty still want it in the bedroom! Dominance is associated with telling it like it is, and calling a girl a "slut" is a surefire assertion of dominance...

I agree with your assertion that most women react well to a man who knows what he wants.

I disagree with your assertion that calling a girl a slut is a surefire assertion of dominance.

I am a dominant male. I do not want a slut for a partner.

Ergo, though I consider part of your premise to be correct, I do not believe it has led you to an accurate conclusion. That's all I was trying to say.

 

[rexfelis]

The word "slut" and the word "whore" are both very strange words to me because they have dictionary definitions,but everyone has their own different definition for them, based usually on the context they have most often observed them being used in.

I, as a dominant male myself, do not like women who hop from bed to bed. I will not sleep with such women, who may very reasonably be called sluts. However, my sub very much enjoys being called a slut, whore, bitch, etc. - and yet she is only thus freely sexual with me. She is a total slut for me, but a lady in public. So, I don't like public sluts, but I very much enjoy my private one.

One word, many definitions.

 

[Esclava]

Just for the record ...

When asked (in scene) by an unattached Dominant, "You're just a little whore, aren't you?" My response was, "No, Sir, but I AM an obedient submissive."

I am not one of those who appreciate being labeled "slut, whore, bitch, etc." in any context except an affectionate, mutually playful conversation with friends I trust. Anything else will set off the fight or flight response ... and I seldom run from a fight.

As for those who love the name calling, rough sex, "bad girl" references - more power to them. Whether it is something they require to feel like they are exercising their submissiveness or it just plain turns them on, if they can find a Dominant to meet those needs - they have been successful in their search for a compatible partner. Just enjoy the ride!

Personally, I don't need the name calling to enjoy being submissive, uninhibited and used for the pleasure of one I respond to as Sir/Ma'am.

Esclava

 

[rexfelis]

When asked (in scene) by an unattached Dominant, "You're just a little whore, aren't you?" My response was, "No, Sir, but I AM an obedient submissive."

I am not one of those who appreciate being labeled "slut, whore, bitch, etc." in any context except an affectionate, mutually playful conversation with friends I trust. Anything else will set off the fight or flight response ... and I seldom run from a fight.

As for those who love the name calling, rough sex, "bad girl" references - more power to them. Whether it is something they require to feel like they are exercising their submissiveness or it just plain turns them on, if they can find a Dominant to meet those needs - they have been successful in their search for a compatible partner. Just enjoy the ride!

Personally, I don't need the name calling to enjoy being submissive, uninhibited and used for the pleasure of one I respond to as Sir/Ma'am.

Esclava

Being fairly new to my dominance and her being new to submission, it took me a while to be able to call her those things. But she absolutely loves it. I pretty much adjust to who I'm dealing with.

 

[Esclava]

Being fairly new to my dominance and her being new to submission, it took me a while to be able to call her those things. But she absolutely loves it. I pretty much adjust to who I'm dealing with.

I think it's great that in your newness - you are open to learning about D/s and BDSM. Perhaps exploring what drives your dominance will help you understand YOUR needs - as well as the needs of the submissive who serves you.

Esclava

 

[barebacknubianf]

I disagree with your assertion that calling a girl a slut is a surefire assertion of dominance.

I am a dominant male. I do not want a slut for a partner.

Ergo, though I consider part of your premise to be correct, I do not believe it has led you to an accurate conclusion. That's all I was trying to say.

I understand what you were trying to say. I'm just puzzled as to why you seem to believe that my saying "calling a girl a slut is a surefire assertion of dominance" means that I think calling a girl a slut is an integral part of dominance. I don't think that at all. Different strokes for different folks. Dominance has so many facets. I, for example, don't find it at all interesting to say things like "I am your obedient sub", because I find it trite. But I accept that, for some people, it's part and parcel of the D/s lifestyle.

We both seem to be saying the same thing from different angles, anyway! Dominance has so many different facets. As many facets as there are people who practise the lifestyle, in fact!

 

[onyxvixen]

Hi bareback

Personally, I have found that calling a submissive a slut/whore etc encourages those who respond positively to this to behave like one. In women who are triggered by this form of namecalling it functions as a conscious emotional step through which they can cast aside inhibition and through the attendant humiliation, place themselves in a psychosexually inferior position to that of their Dom/me.

Of course many women aren't aroused by this and many Dom/mes dislike treating a woman this way, I don't dispute that. For those who do crave this kind of power exchange however, this trigger is an incredibly potent one, unlocking the submissive part of themself that the rest of the world never sees. The part that they themselves entitle their 'inner slut' and 'whore' too.

As a Dom/me it's about finding the right buttons to press in a sub. It would be pointless to address a woman as 'slut' if it did nothing for her or even dampened her arousal purely because I enjoy it. Similarly, if I knew this type of namecalling aroused a sub inbearably it would be equally counterproductive to ignore that. After all, what's more important to me is the level of service I get from her, however procured

 

[rexfelis]

I think it's great that in your newness - you are open to learning about D/s and BDSM. Perhaps exploring what drives your dominance will help you understand YOUR needs - as well as the needs of the submissive who serves you.

Esclava

I have to say, BDSM - not just D/s - has been a series of wonderful self exploration tools. And amusingly, it's fun to discover myself (and her!) this way. She's pushing me to discover more through her enthusiasm and curiosity.

But I don't think I could NOT explore D/s and BDSM. It's what I am. I've been slowly discovering this side of myself ever since shortly after I joined here. It's only been in the last year that I've acted on it, and still going rather slow with it, although we've made a lot of progress for both of us.

It's been easier to explore her than it has been to explore myself, though. lol

 

[barebacknubianf]

Hi bareback

Personally, I have found that calling a submissive a slut/whore etc encourages those who respond positively to this to behave like one. In women who are triggered by this form of namecalling it functions as a conscious emotional step through which they can cast aside inhibition and through the attendant humiliation, place themselves in a psychosexually inferior position to that of their Dom/me.

Of course many women aren't aroused by this and many Dom/mes dislike treating a woman this way, I don't dispute that. For those who do crave this kind of power exchange however, this trigger is an incredibly potent one, unlocking the submissive part of themself that the rest of the world never sees. The part that they themselves entitle their 'inner slut' and 'whore' too.

As a Dom/me it's about finding the right buttons to press in a sub. It would be pointless to address a woman as 'slut' if it did nothing for her or even dampened her arousal purely because I enjoy it. Similarly, if I knew this type of namecalling aroused a sub inbearably it would be equally counterproductive to ignore that. After all, what's more important to me is the level of service I get from her, however procured

Hi Foxy

I think you're right on the money, in quite a few ways. Casting aside inhibition is exactly it (and kind of what I was getting at a few posts back in this discussion). Being called a 'slut' strips away pretence and allows me to get down to the nitty-gritty, as it were. Freedom through humiliation, as it were.

And yes, paying attention to what your sub likes (or maybe not necessarily what she likes but what you feel will push her buttons?) is a surefire way to get the best service...

Nat

 

[BeachGurl2]

Humiliation isn't my thing at all, so I really don't get off on being called slut, whore, whatever. I guess I come at it not from the angle of how the sub gets off on it, but what is it about calling a girl a slut gets guys off? (I know I'm assuming the male Dom/female sub here, but that's my reality so bear with me.) I guess I'm just more interested in knowing what about that is so hot for a guy. So guys, what is it about calling a girl slut, whore, etc., that gets you?

 

[Esclava]

I understand what you were trying to say. I'm just puzzled as to why you seem to believe that my saying "calling a girl a slut is a surefire assertion of dominance" means that I think calling a girl a slut is an integral part of dominance. ...<snip>

bbnf, why are you puzzled? Isn't that what you said? This is what you said earlier in the thread without preface or clarification:

... <snip>Dominance is associated with telling it like it is, and calling a girl a "slut" is a surefire assertion of dominance...

I absolutely believe you said what you meant, meant what you said and you believe every word of it. I have no reason to disbelieve what I see with my eyes in your writing. Fortunately, people WILL disagree with the POV you've expressed. I know many who do not believe the use of such labels is necessary in dominance or submission.

<snip> ...Dominance has so many facets. I, for example, don't find it at all interesting to say things like "I am your obedient sub", because I find it trite. But I accept that, for some people, it's part and parcel of the D/s lifestyle. ...<snip>

I, too, find the phrase "I am your obedient sub" trite - particularly when spoken to someone the submissive has history with.

However, that phrase (or the one I actually used) when spoken to a Dom/me with whom the submissive HAS NO history - takes on a completely different meaning. If the Dom/me is paying attention, it gives foundation information about the submissive - especially if the Dom/me has asked a question about the use of a label such as whore.

If my response had been, "Yes, Sir", that Dom would have had carte blanche to call me whatever label pleased him because I gave him permission to do so. But, I did NOT give him permission and he respected that by calling me "girl" and "toy".

IMO, while the use of labels (such as "slut", "whore", "tramp", "piece of $hit" - pick one or make up your own) may strip away inhibitions for some, they are a crutch and unnecessary in dominance and submission. For me, tolerance is the only suitable way to deal with the use of labels in others because everyone is entitled to practice whatever level of B, D, S, or M responds to their individual needs.

Esclava

 

[barebacknubianf]

bbnf, why are you puzzled? Isn't that what you said?

No, it isn't. It seems you're misreading what I'm saying. I said that calling somebody a slut is "a surefire assertion of dominance", but that is absolutely not the same as saying that it's integral or necessary to dominance as a whole. That's why I was puzzled; why assume that I'm saying one thing when quite clearly I'm saying another? I mean, if people are going to start putting words into my mouth, what's the point of discussing anything?

In any case, I've already posted several times that dominance has many facets etc. etc. and that different people have different tastes. I never made any claim that I was speaking for the whole D/s community, and I never made any claims about what's essential for dominance and what isn't. Honestly, it seems like people are just reading into my words what they want to read rather than what I actually wrote.

 

[onyxvixen]

IMO, while the use of labels (such as "slut", "whore", "tramp", "piece of $hit" - pick one or make up your own) may strip away inhibitions for some, they are a crutch and unnecessary in dominance and submission. For me, tolerance is the only suitable way to deal with the use of labels in others because everyone is entitled to practice whatever level of B, D, S, or M responds to their individual needs.

I would not call these labels a crutch, any more than I would call labels such as "girl" "pet" "toy" etc a crutch. I fail to see what makes one set a D/s security blanket and the other set some elevated set of terms. You can attribute what kudos you like to each set but to sit there and sneer is mean spirited. I would consider that labels such as "girl or "pet" are equally unnecessary and not more or less integral to consensual D/s than the more explicit ones.

"That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet." Said Shakespeare's Juliet.

You can pull apart a rose, examine the petals, the stem, the inner sex of the flower. What you're left with however are simply pieces of rose. You lose the beauty and truth of the flower in dissecting it, you also lose the point.

Pick your label and stick to it but allow others the same freedom. Don't be seduced into thinking that your label is better than theirs.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Humiliation isn't my thing at all, so I really don't get off on being called slut, whore, whatever. I guess I come at it not from the angle of how the sub gets off on it, but what is it about calling a girl a slut gets guys off? (I know I'm assuming the male Dom/female sub here, but that's my reality so bear with me.) I guess I'm just more interested in knowing what about that is so hot for a guy. So guys, what is it about calling a girl slut, whore, etc., that gets you?

I'm not a male Dominant but from my understanding it can come from various angles, some being the control of who the sub is, the desire to create a personality the opposite of who the sub is as a tool in power and control, degradation and humiliation, emphasis on the ownership and control of the sub body. Seems many male subs also delight in being called a slut, some even like to be forced to become one.

Catalina

 

[mickyp123]

I would not call these labels a crutch, any more than I would call labels such as "girl" "pet" "toy" etc a crutch. I fail to see what makes one set a D/s security blanket and the other set some elevated set of terms. You can attribute what kudos you like to each set but to sit there and sneer is mean spirited. I would consider that labels such as "girl or "pet" are equally unnecessary and not more or less integral to consensual D/s than the more explicit ones.

"That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet." Said Shakespeare's Juliet.

You can pull apart a rose, examine the petals, the stem, the inner sex of the flower. What you're left with however are simply pieces of rose. You lose the beauty and truth of the flower in dissecting it, you also lose the point.

Pick your label and stick to it but allow others the same freedom. Don't be seduced into thinking that your label is better than theirs.

Quote
You can pull apart a rose, examine the petals, the stem, the inner sex of the flower. What you're left with however are simply pieces of rose. You lose the beauty and truth of the flower in dissecting it, you also lose the point.

I like that, Its nice to pick up and learn something,

 

[esclave_PP]

I have a perfect piece for you. And welcome btw -- hopefully not too long to post here...

WHY BDSM?

"BDSM" is a tripart acronym of "B&D" (Bondage & Discipline), "D&S" (Dominance & Submission), and "S&M" (sadomasochism). "BDSM" refers to any or all of these things in any combination, and a lot of stuff besides.

Tying up your lover is BDSM; so is flogging that person, or bossing that person around, or any of a thousand other things. BDSM is highly erotic, usually (though not always) involves sex or sexual tension; and is highly psychologically charged. One person (the "submissive") agrees to submit to another person (the "dominant").

Some people like to be submissive all the time, some people like to be dominant all the time; some people like to switch, being submissive one day and dominant the next.

Many people practice some element of BDSM in their sexual lives without even necessarily being aware of it. They may think of "S&M" as "That sick stuff that people do with whips and cattle prods and stuff," yet still blindfold one another from time to time, or tie one another down and break out the whipped cream...

All of these things are "BDSM." BDSM is not necessarily hardcore sadomasochism; it can be remarkably subtle and sensual and soft. Pinning your partner to the bed and running silk or ice cubes or rabbit fur over your lover's body qualifies as "BDSM" (specifically, of a variety called "sensation play").

BDSM doesn't have to involve all of these.

There are many people involved in BDSM who enjoy tying others up, or being tied up themselves, but who do not enjoy S&M--that is, they aren't interested in inflicting or receiving pain. Sometimes, one partner just ties up the other, as a form of foreplay. Similarly, there are many people who may like the psychological control they get from ordering their lovers to do things, but do not care for being physically restrained or tied, or for tying up their lovers.
BDSM is as varied as the people who do it.

Some people, myself included, love the aesthetic of an elaborate rope harness, or an elaborate form of bondage; others simply aren't interested in the bondage elements at all. The key to all these different forms of BDSM, though, is the exchange of power. One person (the "bottom" or "submissive") is choosing to allow the other person (the "top" or "dominant") to have control over him or her in some way--perhaps by allowing the dominant to tie them up, perhaps by allowing the dominant to spank them, perhaps simply by doing whatever the dominant instructs them to.

In particular, BDSM is NOT abuse!

People who are practicing BDSM in any of its trillions of forms are doing it voluntarily, for fun. It's a way to explore. Everything that happens in a BDSM relationship is consensual; and believe it or not, it's not just about the dominant getting what he or she wants--it's more about the submissive getting what he or she wants.

An abuser has no regard for the feelings, needs, or limits of the victim. A BDSM dominant is concerned above all else with the needs and desires of the submissive. Pretty straightforward, really.

BDSM isn't what you see in porn flicks.

The image of BDSM that is portrayed in many materials of this sort has about as much to do with BDSM as the child's tale "Jack and the Magic Beanstalk" has to do with agriculture. These materials show little more than women being used in various unoriginal ways for men's enjoyment, usually by force. The reality is that there are actually more male submissives than female submissives; and that BDSM is a mutual activity that is driven more by the needs of the submissive than by the needs of the dominant.

Uh-huh. Sure. The needs of the submissive. Right. The dominant is the one bossing the other person around; you'd have to be some kind of jerk to want to do that.
While that may seem like it makes sense on the surface, the truth is just the opposite. People who are good at dominating or inflicting pain are, in general, LESS likely than many other people to be jerks or assholes.

Why? Because in order to be good at doing it, 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; and people who are empathetic tend not to be assholes. All of the real top-notch dominants I've ever met, without exception, are incredibly cool people.

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. It's the dominant's job to create a setting where the people incolved can explore the submissive's fantasies.

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 psychlogy 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.

(As an aside, the official position of the National Organization of Women (NOW) is that BDSM is inherently abusive and destructive to women. The feeling, apparently, is that women are coequal to men and should be allowed to choose any role they want in life, unless they choose to explore BDSM, in which case they're weak and need to be protected. Some people in NOW are trying to change that. Before making such a blanket statement and rash generalization, they should understand how self confident and strong a person and personality it takes to be submissive.)

It's all for the submissive's benefit? Yeah, right. The submissive is the one being bossed around or spanked or whatever. How can you say that isn't abuse?

Simple. Two key elements:

In a BDSM relationship, the submissive sets the limits. A victim of abuse doesn't get a vote; the victim can't tell the abuser what to do, or how much to do it. A submissive sets all the limits--what kinds of things can be (and can't be!) done, how much, and for how long.

And while we're on the subject of limits, there is more than one kind of limit in a BDSM relationship. Everybody has "hard" limits--things that they absolutely will not do, and will not even consider. Some people, for example, like to be tied up but don't like the idea of being whipped; if they won't allow themselves to be whipped, ever, that's a hard limit.

There are also "soft" limits--things that someone won't do under ordinary circumstances, but will allow to be "forced" on him or her in the context of a particular scenario that's being acted out.Between soft limits and hard limits lies an interesting psychological territory to explore.
A submissive gets a way to opt out. This may be a code word, or a sign of some sort; if the submissive uses it, he or she has had enough and the scene is over. An abuse victim doesn't tell the abuser when to stop.

So don't you have to be kind of sick or messed up to do that stuff?

No.

C'mon, really. I mean, tying people up...whipping them. Isn't that demented?

No.

For the most part, people who are into this kind of thing are remarkably well-adjusted. People involved in BDSM generally are neither abusive nor come from backgrounds where they were abused, because people with that kind of backgrounds aren't likely to be sexually turned on by giving someone else power over them. That doesn't mean that no BDSM relationship is abusive--since people are what they are, no form of human interaction is immune to abuse. But it does mean that the people you'll find in the BDSM community are, for the most part, very stable. (In fact, if you're going to get involved in this kind of stuff, it helps to have a cast-iron ego and a strong sense of self, particularly if you're a submissive.)

Some people maintain that anyone interested in BDSM is suffering from some kind of past abuse. I think that the "BDSM interest=past abuse" assertion is most frequently made by people who don't understand what BDSM is. They see someone being flogged, they say "Oh! People in a BDSM relationship get hit; people in an abusive relationship get hit; ergo, BDSM is like an abusive relationship. QED."

But the fact is, the psychology of a BDSM power exchange is vastly different from the psychology of abuse; and in a BDSM relaionship, the psychology is frequently driven by the limitations of the submissive, not the dominant. Typically, it is the submissive who says "This far and no farther"--which is entirely contradictory to the psychology of abuse.

Now I'm not saying that people into BDSM are never victims of abuse, of course. If you survey any arbitrary group of people--all lawyers, all redheads, all Ford - BMW or Toyota Camry owners, all BDSM participants--you'll find that some people in that group are abuse survivors. But that doesn't imply a direct connection between abuse and the practice of law, or hair color, or choice of transportation...or BDSM.

BDSM is not what it looks like from the outside. It's not just tying people up and having sex, and it's not just arbitrarily whipping people. That's very crude, and kind of boring. What it is is a sort of role-playing, where the people involved are acting out a fantasy that involves taking or giving up power. Sex is often involved, but not always.

Role-playing? Fantasy? You make it sound like it's all some kind of game.
It is. You're exercising your imagination, and you're playing a game with the other person. You get to be the dominant; your partner is the submissive; you're playing the role of the mad scientist who's just kidnapped someone and is going to use this poor innocent person for evil experiments. Or whatever. (There are people who do this all the time--one always the dominant, one always the submissive--who will tell you it isn't a game, but that's part of the game and some who live it 24 hours a day every day and don't realize that they're living a BDSM relationship.)

At the same time, however, it is very serious. You're creating a framework that allows you to have fun and explore some very powerfully charged areas of human psychology, and push your boundaries at the same time. In this way, BDSM can be a powerful tool for self-discovery and exploration.

You can also explore fantasies by roleplaying scenarios that are highly charged psychologically. One such type of exploration is a form of BDSM called "resistance play," in which one person (the dominant) takes another person (the submissive) by force, and the submissive is expected and encouraged to resist by force. This kind of play is not everyone's cup of tea, of course, but it can be a safe and fun way to explore some of the darker fantasies that are very common in a surprising number of people.

This also can lead you into some highly volatile psychological territory. Even if it seems like something you really want to experiment with, it's possible that it can hit some psychological triggers that produce a reaction you didn't expect. So it pays to go carefully.

Many of the standard rules of BDSM apply doubly or triply to this kind of scenario. For example, using a "safeword"--a code word that means "Stop!"--is absolutely vital when you're experimenting with resistance play; one of the tenants of resistance play is that "no" does not mean "no," so you need a word that does.

It also pays to negotiate the basic parameters in which you'll operate beforehand. Different people have different idea of what constitutes "force" or how rough "rough" is. If everyone involved isn't on the same page, someone may get hurt in a way that isn't so fun.

Whoa, wait a minute. Force? Whipping? That's supposed to be FUN??

It is fun, if that's your sort of thing. The experience of being flogged is nothing like what you imagine it would be like. For the most part, it's more stimulating than painful. Ditto for the experience of acting out, say, a resistance-play fantasy.

Quite honestly, there was a time when I drew the line at the whipping thing. I was absolutely certain I'd never, ever, under any circumstances, allow someone to flog me. Not me, no sir.
But then I tried it (long story), and it was absolutely nothing like what I though it'd be like.
Ever have a really deep massage? The kind that hurts, but still feels good? Same thing, only more so.

Besides, when you're sexually aroused, all kind of stimulation can be fun. Ever had a lover who left gouges in your back during sex? Or one who bites? It's very passionate and intense. If you're in the right frame of mind, even a flogging that leaves welts isn't really painful, precisely--not like stubbing your toe, or running into the edge of the bathroom wall at two o'clock in the morning because you didn't turn the light on. It's more like the lover who claws your back when she gets off thing. But hey, if it's not for you, don't do it.

Damn straight! I would never do that; I respect my lover too much.

Experimenting with intense things like resistance play and pain play do not mean you do not respect your lover. Quite the contrary; respect for your lover is absolutely paramount if you wish to do these things safely.

Respect for your lover is not just in behaving according to some ideal about the way "men are supposed to treat women" or whatever. Respect for your lover lies in exploring with your lover, creating with your lover, doing with your lover those things that you and your lover wish to do, sharing yourself on a very deep level with your lover... It's reflected in everything you say, do, express, feel, and think with your lover.

Different people want, need, and value different things. Respect recognizes those differences. And above all else, respect is an integral part of the mutual process of self-exploration and self discovery.

Now hold on a minute, kink-boy. We're talking about kinky S&M here, not Buddhism. What do you mean, "self exploration?"

Just that.

BDSM is a very broad term that encompasses many wildly different practices, and many wildly different beliefs. But central to all these things is the idea of challenging boundaries and testing limits--and that's precisely what self-exploration is all about.

You cannot know your limits if you never test them and never explore them. You may know some general things, but you can't truly know yourself if you have never explored and never experimented. As Francis Bacon wrote, Your true self can be known only by systematic experimentation, and controlled only by being known.

BDSM provides a context and a set of tools for exploring your own personal boundaries in a safe, fun, enjoyable, and mutually reciprocal way. It provides a vehicle by which you can get to know yourself and your lover much more deeply and intimately than you might have thought possible. And hey, you often find along the way that you can be surprised! You probably have turn-ons that you don't even kow you have, and you will never discover without exploration.
And that, my friend, can truly enrich your lofe and the life of your lover.

When it comes right down to it, if your goal is self-knowledge and personal enlightenment, I put six months in a BDSM relationship up there with three years in a Tibetian monestary any day.

But where do you draw the line? How much is too much?

You draw the line wherever you want to. There isn't one way to "do" BDSM, and not everybody is in to the same things. If you like being tied up, but you don't want to be whipped, then don't be whipped! Every person is unique; not everybody has the same turn-ons; if you don't like something, don't do it.

Most people who practice BDSM believe in "safe, sane, and consensual."

That means: Don't do anything blatantly unsafe; don't try anything that's likely to get you killed or injured if you screw up, and don't do something if you aren't sure how. Be reasonable and rational. Know the difference between fantasy and reality. Make sure you're both into it before you do it. Do that, and you'll probably be okay. It's like anything else; exploring an interest in fine cuisine doesn't mean you have to like fish eggs! If it isn't for you, then that's where you draw the line.

But once you get involved in this sort of thing, don't you keep going further and further? Can you ever stop?

This isn't really a question about BDSM. This is a question about human nature.

People are very, very complex creatures, and it's unrealistic to think that you know the whole truth about every aspect of yourself without ever having experimented with the things that turn you on. There are many things that I thoughrt would never appeal to me that experimentation has proven are huge turn-ons for me, and I suspect the same is true of most people.

Not even "most people who are into BDSM"--most people. Nobody is completely static, and nobody can be expected to know absolutely everything about himself or herself from the get-go.
So yeah, when you start experimenting, you may find that there are things that turn you on that you never thought would turn you on. But then again, unless you are hopelessly shallow, as you go through life you'll probably discover new things that turn you on even if you don't get involved with BDSM!

And of course you can stop. Just because you learn something new about yourself, that doesn't mean you're changing into some kind of raving, uncontrolled lunatic! It just means you've discovered something new, that's all.

But how do I know if it is for me? How do I know if I'm a dominant or a submissive? How do I know if I like any of this stuff?

That depends on you. It's not like there's only one kind of person who's into BDSM; and it's not like only men are dominant or only women are submissive. (In fact, the deck seems to be tilted in favor of men who are submissives.)

And you don't necessarily even have to be dominant or submissive! Maybe you like experimenting with being tied up, or tying up your lover, but all that bossing-about stuff does nothing for you. So, the terms "dominant" or "submissive" may not apply to you, even though you do want to experiment with some aspects of BDSM. Don't get hung up on the terminology. It's really not that important.

Are you into any of this at all? Well, that depends. Have you ever had fantasies about being tied up and helpless while unspeakable things are done to your body? Have you ever wanted to be able to tell your lover exactly what to do ("Get on your knees and bark like a dog!")? You might enjoy experimenting with this sort of thing. Hey, there are worse things in the world than having an interesting and varied sex life--and if you experiment and decide it isn't for you, so be it!

So...why? What's the point of tying people up? Why would someone agree to any of this?

That's a complicated question.

The short answer is: Because it's fun, it's highly arousing, and it's tremendously powerful. It's a great vehicle for exploring a number of different kinds of fantasies in a way that's exhilarating.
People are dominant or submissive for different reasons. Being submissive in a BDSM scene can be tremendously liberating, particularly for people who aren't comfortable exploring their sexuality or their personal boundaries. When you agree to act as a submissive, you give up responsibility for what's going on; you sit back and let things happen. Provided you trust the person who's being the dominant, you can mentally relax and concentrate on the role that's being created for you.

As a dominant, the pleasure comes from constructing a scenario and acting it out. You can, at least within reason, determine the submissive's fate; you're the scriptwriter, director, and producer of the entire show; you construct the fantasy world and make it real. Being a good dominant is a lot of work. You have to be creative; you must be able to improvise; and you have to pay attention to your submissive, to maintain the illusion you're creating and make sure your submissive is getting what he or she wants from the scenario. In many ways, the dominant person is a facilitator; the dominant's job is to make a fantasy that takes the submissive wherever he or she wants to go, and bring that fantasy to life. It can also be very, very romantic too.

What? Romantic? You've got to be joking.

Nope. See, that's one of the things about BDSM that isn't obvious to someone on the outside. When a dominant is creating a BDSM scenario, the dominant needs to focus his or her attention entirely on the submissive. A good dominant pays very close attention to the submissive--how the submissive is reacting, what's going on around the submissive, what the submissive is feeling--everything. Having somebody pay that close attention to you doesn't suck. It's very romantic.

So you've got someone tied to the bed. So what?

It's more than just tying someone to the bed. The good stuff isn't in tying the knots; it's in what you are while you're tying the knots. Think of it as a game that's two parts acting, two parts roleplaying, three parts sex, and two parts psychology.

Or, if you want, think of this: There she (or he, depending on who you are) is, lying helpless beneath you, restrained hand and foot, blindfolded, and you have a feather in your hand...and she's very ticklish...and she doesn't...know...when or where...you're...going...to... Just that you have that feather in hand and she or he can't escape what will happen.... eventually somewhere on their naked body.

Uh...wait. Blindfolded?

Yeah! That way, the submissive (a) can't tell what's about to happen (anticipation can be half the fun) and (b) is made to focus more closely on what she's (or he's) feeling.

So, anyway, there she is, restrained hand and foot, and you get out the clothespins, and...
Clothespins?

Yes. You use them to...well, maybe we'll get into that later..

The point is: Just tying somebody up is boring. The fun is in the stuff that goes with it. When you're restrained, you have this delicious feeling of helplessness, your lover free to do anything to your vulnerable body...it's fun!

(Incidentally, there's more than one way to tie somebody up. When most people think about bondage, they think of tying someone spreadeagle to the bed. That's a simple form of "restraint bondage"--tying somebody to keep that person from moving.

Another form of bondage is "stimulation bondage"--tying somebody up, not to keep that person from moving, but in a way that stimulates that person sexually. For example, there is a form of rope harness called a "karada" (Japanese term used in their style of rope bondage which is very extensive by the way) which is typically tied around a woman in such a way that the ropes pass across her breasts, around her back, and up between her legs. This form of bondage does not restrict motion at all--in fact, you can wear it to work under your clothes!--but every time she moves, the ropes shift across her breasts and between her legs, constantly stimulating her and reminding her that they are there, as you've already learned in part my pet. *lil grin*)

The same kind of fun can be had in bossing your lover around. The fun part isn't that you can give orders; anybody can be pushy. The fun part is in the fact that your lover is compelled, within the limits of the game, to obey. She must submit as you tell her to slowly--no, more slowly--peel off her clothes, and caress her own body as she tells you, Maestro, that she'll do anything to make you happy; then, as you direct, pick up the vibrator and...

You get the idea. These are some very tame scenarios, but they illustrate that there's more going on than just tying somebody to your bed or bossing somebody around. There's an entire interaction here that's highly sensual and very intense.

 

[Esclava]

Just one last thing ...

There is nothing, in anything I have written, about any label being “better” than any other - only about meeting individual needs. My opinion (read: “IMO…”) is my opinion and I stand by it. Although, I must apologize for not being crystal clear in what I said. In my failure to communicate, I left out one very critical word:

Originally Posted by Esclava
"IMO, while the use of labels (such as "slut", "whore", "tramp", "piece of $hit" - pick one or make up your own) may strip away inhibitions for some, they are a crutch and unnecessary in MY dominance and submission. For me, tolerance is the only suitable way to deal with the use of labels in others because everyone is entitled to practice whatever level of B, D, S, or M responds to their individual needs."

That error reminds me how the omission of – even a single word – can turn something that is “clear” to me into fodder for misunderstanding and defensive retort for someone else.

If I have misquoted anyone, show me where and I will apologize without hesitation - but, I have not. I simply followed the rules of good communication by repeating what I understood when I read that statement. If the intended message was lost in translation between what was “clearly” meant when written and what was understood when read, then the misunderstanding is not completely the fault of the reader. Just remember - I am not the only member of the audience who misread or misunderstood what the statement inferred.

If being questioned about the clarity of something written here is offensive to you, get ready for it. People here will question those things which don't make sense or strike them as dangerous or untrue.

Esclava

P.S.: Oh, and NO ONE here knows me well enough to lecture me about being seduced into thinking my labels are better than someone else's. I don't demoralize anyone's opinion and expect the same in return.

 

[barebacknubianf]

P.S.: Oh, and NO ONE here knows me well enough to lecture me about being seduced into thinking my labels are better than someone else's. I don't demoralize anyone's opinion and expect the same in return.

Get down off your high horse. Nobody's "demoralizing" (whatever you mean by that - I think perhaps "denigrating"?) your opinion by disagreeing with it. It has never been said that your ideas were bad or wrong; I think onyxvixen was simply pointing out a contradiction. No reason to come off all victimized.

Anyway, whatever. I like being called a slut and you don't, is what it boils down to. Maybe I should have saved us all the bother and made that my original post - forgetting about the whys and wherefores. There are clearly too many opportunities for misinterpretation.

 

[barebacknubianf]

If I have misquoted anyone, show me where and I will apologize without hesitation - but, I have not. I simply followed the rules of good communication by repeating what I understood when I read that statement. If the intended message was lost in translation between what was “clearly” meant when written and what was understood when read, then the misunderstanding is not completely the fault of the reader. Just remember - I am not the only member of the audience who misread or misunderstood what the statement inferred.

If being questioned about the clarity of something written here is offensive to you, get ready for it. People here will question those things which don't make sense or strike them as dangerous or untrue.

Esclava

I should note, as a parting shot, that nobody is accusing you of misquoting anything. I'm accusing you of misreading, which is another thing entirely.

And being questioned about clarity isn't offensive to me. Just annoying, because it means time has to be wasted untangling misunderstandings and the interesting discussion gets lost. Anyway, it seems less the case that people here are "questioning things which don't make sense" as they are just looking for an opportunity to jump off at the deep end.