Not Dom, not sub...

[Let_it_come]

Yet another PS!

There is a sense in which the 'true' Sadist uses the other persons body purely as a tool for masturbation.
It is never really an exchange between true Sadist & 'Victim', it is always an act of taking/rape/theft by the Sadist.
The partner in the sex act with the Sadist is nothing. Less than zero. Nada. Ziltch.
A really masochistic masochist would get something from the pairing, but the 'true Sadist' would hate them for enjoying it.
Am I wrong - this is nothing like Subs & Doms?
I honestly won't know until I'm told because Subbing & Domming are so alien to my sexuality the more I really think about it.

Funny folk, Sadists...

 

[catalina_francisco]

LOL, the more you talk, the more obvious it becomes you really don't know what it is you are on about, except of course in relation to your own 'true' sadism theory. Far be it from me to enlighten you, though I am sure if you read a few more threads here you will find a lot of what you are saying does not exist, but would you recognise it if it hit you over the head even, that is the question here I think?!!

Catalina

 

[SpectreT]

ST: I can't comment on that too much, since I'm more B/D with a little D/S and almost no S/M. My own "psychosexual multiple personality disorder" (love that phrase - thanks, Hester) is an example of how S/M can be separated from the other two.

P: I think that's an important distinction to make.


ST: I don't think I could knock sombody's teeth down their throat or carve a Shakespeare soliloquy in their ass with a soldering iron, no matter how hot it'd make them. Serious pain and damage potential (Not counting the effects of really tight long-term bondage) are outside my realm of what's acceptable.

Probably you're speaking humorously, but your choice of gentle stuff for DS and extreme nasties for SM biases the comparison. It is surely 'sadism' (also) to inflict medium level pain, and minimize longterm damage potential (bodily harms that are transient, iow). And of course all sadism does not involve the 'operating' on the body.

Yes, I was using exaggeration for humorous purposes. Also, I carefully added an aside which shows how my own kinks can lead to both serious pain and bodily harm, in an effort to moderate the impact of my humor.

I do not believe I chose "Gentle Stuff" for D/S. Trust me; rope bondage can be very painful, especially with long durations and extreme positions, where the potential for bodily damage is incredible. Mind you, I'm mostly preaching to the choir with statements like that; we're a veritable University of Kinkyness here, but some folks are new; I wouldn't advise a beginner to leave their sub in a reverse prayer-tie or keep their elbows pressed together behind their back for a great deal of time (Though that can be trained up to with enough natural flexibility and serious commitment to the goal; think Yoga and lots of practice...)

My apologies, I got off on a tangent there. The point I wanted to make is that sometimes, incompatible is incompatible. Complementary isn't always necessary, but in general, is greatly beneficial, at least in the realms of D/S. I'll address further in reply to Let_it_Come's posts...

 

[SpectreT]

Yet another PS!

There is a sense in which the 'true' Sadist uses the other persons body purely as a tool for masturbation.
It is never really an exchange between true Sadist & 'Victim', it is always an act of taking/rape/theft by the Sadist.
The partner in the sex act with the Sadist is nothing. Less than zero. Nada. Ziltch.
A really masochistic masochist would get something from the pairing, but the 'true Sadist' would hate them for enjoying it.
Am I wrong - this is nothing like Subs & Doms?
I honestly won't know until I'm told because Subbing & Domming are so alien to my sexuality the more I really think about it.

Funny folk, Sadists...

This reminds me of the gulf between the theory of Communism, and the practice of Communism, as was done in the USSR.

Let_it_Come seems to be posting from the textbook definition of sadism, rather than discussing actual practice. I have to work in theoreticals on this; I haven't got enough sadism to cover the head of a pin... (Okay, I'm wrong. I like to screw with some people's minds.) I made a remark regarding ethics and knowledge of consequenses and their effects on sadistic expression; perhaps there's food for discussion in that area, in another thread. I'd intended to delve into this a little more in the academic and theoretical vein, but catalina_francisco's post changed my mind, and this thread has wandered a bit from the original idea.

 

[dexwebster]

LOL, the more you talk, the more obvious it becomes you really don't know what it is you are on about, except of course in relation to your own 'true' sadism theory. Far be it from me to enlighten you, though I am sure if you read a few more threads here you will find a lot of what you are saying does not exist, but would you recognise it if it hit you over the head even, that is the question here I think?!!

Catalina

To be fair, I think there is something to let_it_come's statement, but not the labeling. I don't think "true" sadism is appropriate in that case so much as "clinical" sadism may be.

 

[Hester]

A little PS to my last post on this -
I actually hate masochists because they take the Sadistic pleasure out of hurting.
Could I be any more honest here or any more ugly?


I think when you are Maso or Sado you are polar opposites. Sub/Dom I see as a partnership. I see the person I hurt always as my 'victim'. That's why I'm having a hard time 'getting it'. But I'm loving learning here so much.

Jenny

i have to agree with ebony. i'm both sado and maso in one little package. and they can both come out at the same time.

what i think hester is saying, seconded by Let-it, is the S and M impulses are often a blend. e.g., the 'real' Marquis would whip and be whipped in a single session. the movie "The Piano Teacher" illustrates this rather well; there is desire to torture (carried out 'sadistically') and (co-existing) greed to be tortured/humiliated.

right.

 

[sunandshadow]

I'm noticing this thread late because I don't hang out in this forum much, but I'm one of those people who is neither a dom nor a sub, I'm an assertive who is happiest with an equal partner. I don't like giving or receiving pain either, I'm around here because I'm interested in pet play, spoiling (whether the guy is a daddy dom or a money slave), and I'm a woman who doesn't shave, all fetishy things that get lumped in with BDSM.

So, was there a question?

 

[Ebonyfire]

I think when you are Maso or Sado you are polar opposites.

If you take the view that a partnership is a valid agreement between two people, then you can view Sadists and Masochists as partners when they come together.

Eb

 

[catalina_francisco]

To be fair, I think there is something to let_it_come's statement, but not the labeling. I don't think "true" sadism is appropriate in that case so much as "clinical" sadism may be.

True, though perhaps lic did not intend it as just clinical, and that is a discussion of distinction that has happened here often. My post was more in reference to the thought that there could not be situations of 'switch like behaviour' where SM is concerned...I for one can enjoy both, as can many others on this forum.

Catalina

 

[Private_Label]

Yet another PS!

There is a sense in which the 'true' Sadist uses the other persons body purely as a tool for masturbation.
It is never really an exchange between true Sadist & 'Victim', it is always an act of taking/rape/theft by the Sadist.
The partner in the sex act with the Sadist is nothing. Less than zero. Nada. Ziltch.
A really masochistic masochist would get something from the pairing, but the 'true Sadist' would hate them for enjoying it.
Am I wrong - this is nothing like Subs & Doms?
I honestly won't know until I'm told because Subbing & Domming are so alien to my sexuality the more I really think about it.

Funny folk, Sadists...

So you are saying you don't feel there is a place for a "true Sadist" who also sometimes enjoys being on the receiving end of pain? I will admit that most of the post material have been from people who are firmly planted on one side or the other of the S/M hash mark, but just as there are the rare middle ground switches who occasionally tread on the other side of the line, there are surely those who are "True sadist" or "true Maso" who also occasionally enjoy to be on the other side of giving or receiving. Just because they don't talk a lot about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that they are any less "true" to their primary kink.

Just playing here, pointing out what a logic teacher would call a fallacy. Just because you haven't met them doesn't mean they don't exist. You can't "prove" a negative. Be careful that the overly broad genrealization doesn't come back to bite you.

 

[Let_it_come]

My 2c...

Hi everybody!

First of all - Sorry to have polluted this thread with stuff belonging more properly on the 'Sadist' threads. My intention wasn't to divert the debate here.

As for my POV and my thoughts on Sadism - They are just that MY POV & MY thoughts. I enjoy sexual Sadism and have a 'take' on the subject. I can't speak for anybody else on the planet but myself. All that I have written I do stand by, but stress again that they are just my ideas based on my thoughts, feelings and experiences.
The 'true' Sadist I talk about is my definition also - Yours could well be the opposite. A 'true' anything is a pretty meaningless term anyway. Maybe extreme Sadist would have been better or Uber Sadist or anything else. All terms have something wrong with them.

Enlightened? Unenlightened? When all I am doing is putting across how I see things and speaking purely for myself then I am the expert on what I'm saying surely? I am certainly not the expert on anything else and wouldn't pretend to be. Had I said that I was going to give you the official Sadist's handbook version of things then you could have told me that what I was saying was untrue, but when I phrase what I say as being my POV then surely it is valid? Valid for me only, maybe. But without different opinions coming into the forum where is the debate?
Jenny

 

[Let_it_come]

LOL, the more you talk, the more obvious it becomes you really don't know what it is you are on about, except of course in relation to your own 'true' sadism theory. Far be it from me to enlighten you, though I am sure if you read a few more threads here you will find a lot of what you are saying does not exist, but would you recognise it if it hit you over the head even, that is the question here I think?!!

Catalina

I'm fine with your comments & I'm well used to the way you phrase them by now. Can I just very humbly say that while what you say is a valid POV it is also, like mine, just a POV.
I speak about what I think from my experience, you speak from your experience and the experiences of many other's here on many other threads.
What I say may well be the opinion of a minority of one, but it is still an opinion.
Can we debate here & not attack?
The more diverse opinions in your forum the more interesting it will be surely?

Jenny

 

[Let_it_come]

So you are saying you don't feel there is a place for a "true Sadist" who also sometimes enjoys being on the receiving end of pain? I will admit that most of the post material have been from people who are firmly planted on one side or the other of the S/M hash mark, but just as there are the rare middle ground switches who occasionally tread on the other side of the line, there are surely those who are "True sadist" or "true Maso" who also occasionally enjoy to be on the other side of giving or receiving. Just because they don't talk a lot about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that they are any less "true" to their primary kink.

Just playing here, pointing out what a logic teacher would call a fallacy. Just because you haven't met them doesn't mean they don't exist. You can't "prove" a negative. Be careful that the overly broad genrealization doesn't come back to bite you.

There is a place for everything & everyone. Most things that exist I have never met. Many things that exist I actively avoid. This is why all I can ever give you is just my POV.
For ME (& me alone maybe!) my focus is on the dishing out not the receiving.
For ME, that's it. It's a very narrow focus I'll agree.
MY Sadism is all about me. When I play with my b/f & let him hurt me it is his cruelty being displayed that I enjoy witnessing. Again it is my pleasure to see him acting that way, not his pleasure in whatever he is doing that is my focus.
This I feel is very unlike the S/D relationship. But I'm no expert on how you S/D guys feel. I just get the sense that you are more 'into' each other.
Mine is a very selfish take on what it all means to me.
Not pretty, but true.

 

[RJMasters]

The more diverse opinions in your forum the more interesting it will be surely?

In some cases that is true. In others it just makes for a lot of scrollig.

 

[Let_it_come]

In some cases that is true. In others it just makes for a lot of scrollig.

LOL!
I get ya, don't worry (not that you were, etc).
But why join a forum if you aren't interested in debate?
I'm interested in everybody's POV.
By ignoring any forum menber all you do is deprive yourself of really knowing what is going on, maybe?

 

[SpectreT]

<snip>
By ignoring any forum menber all you do is deprive yourself of really knowing what is going on, maybe?

Be aware this does not refer to you, Let_it_Come, but the one and only poster who has ever made it onto my "ignore" list, but;

"... or denying youself the need for a crate of Mylanta or a really good defense lawyer..."

 

[Let_it_come]

I like that!
Cute

 

[RJMasters]

But why join a forum if you aren't interested in debate?

Class is now in session...take notes as there will be a test.

There is a difference between

Debate, Discussion...and Dialogue. Many would rather enjoy a discussion on a topic rather than debate it. Many are mature enough to share a dialogue on topics even though others might hold an opposite position, yet do not feel the need to debate. Debate when done with a level of maturity, can be an effective means to share opposing positions on a topic in the hopes of expanding people's thinking. To debate for the sake of debating is just stupid and profits little.

Debate also is not expressing opinions! Anyone knows it is impossible to debate opinions. Everyone has a right to an opinion good bad or otherwise. Therefore it is stupid to continuiously state on one hand you are here for debate, and then on the other hand, you say all your doing is expressing opinion.

Debate involves people who are attacking each other's position or stated ascertions. When doing so, there is this thing called evidence. It comes usually in four types.

Personal experience – eyewitness testimony, personal observation, and firsthand knowledge.
Outside authority – opinions or knowledge of experts or specialists in a field.
Facts and examples – up-to-date information, historical background, scientific studies.
Statistics – percentages, scientific data, figures, and indexes

In any arena, a person who claims personal experience as the only means to back up what they say, is consider a very poor debater, because "I said so" carries little weight.

When you make a statement of fact, you are not expressing your opinion, you are making a claim. That claim can be debated and other evidence may be brought in to show why such a claim is unrealistic. So when you make claims that real sadists do this or don't do that, you are not expressing opinion, you are making a claim. It is not ok then to go back and say I am just expressing my opinion because that is a lie.

Further more, if by some chance in ignorance you are using the word debate wrongly, and you are only attempting to express your opinions, then you should take better care in how you word your opinions. In which case let me remind you that people have the right to express their opinions about your opinions and be just as right.

The confusion here that is generated is initated by you. You are in fact using debate tatics in order to make claims. The people who see this have a broad range of experience, which you confess to not having, and then when they point out that your claims are simply not based in reality, you shift from debate into opinion mode.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. To say that real sadists do not enjoy recieving pain themselves, or that they hate the fact the other person is enjoying it, is not expressing personal opinion, you are making claims just like you have with other things. These claims are debatable, and unlike you, many here have more than just personal opinion or POV's to back up what they say.

So if you want to say...That you as a sadist hate it when the other person enjoys recieving pain, then say that. If you want to say...that you as a sadist do not like to recieve pain, then say that. But don't try make claims in the guise of opinion and then get bent when people call you on your bullshit.

Class dismissed

 

[Let_it_come]

Class is now in session...take notes as there will be a test.

There is a difference between

Debate, Discussion...and Dialogue. Many would rather enjoy a discussion on a topic rather than debate it. Many are mature enough to share a dialogue on topics even though others might hold an opposite position, yet do not feel the need to debate. Debate when done with a level of maturity, can be an effective means to share opposing positions on a topic in the hopes of expanding people's thinking. To debate for the sake of debating is just stupid and profits little.

Debate also is not expressing opinions! Anyone knows it is impossible to debate opinions. Everyone has a right to an opinion good bad or otherwise. Therefore it is stupid to continuiously state on one hand you are here for debate, and then on the other hand, you say all your doing is expressing opinion.

Debate involves people who are attacking each other's position or stated ascertions. When doing so, there is this thing called evidence. It comes usually in four types.

Personal experience – eyewitness testimony, personal observation, and firsthand knowledge.
Outside authority – opinions or knowledge of experts or specialists in a field.
Facts and examples – up-to-date information, historical background, scientific studies.
Statistics – percentages, scientific data, figures, and indexes

In any arena, a person who claims personal experience as the only means to back up what they say, is consider a very poor debater, because "I said so" carries little weight.

When you make a statement of fact, you are not expressing your opinion, you are making a claim. That claim can be debated and other evidence may be brought in to show why such a claim is unrealistic. So when you make claims that real sadists do this or don't do that, you are not expressing opinion, you are making a claim. It is not ok then to go back and say I am just expressing my opinion because that is a lie.

Further more, if by some chance in ignorance you are using the word debate wrongly, and you are only attempting to express your opinions, then you should take better care in how you word your opinions. In which case let me remind you that people have the right to express their opinions about your opinions and be just as right.

The confusion here that is generated is initated by you. You are in fact using debate tatics in order to make claims. The people who see this have a broad range of experience, which you confess to not having, and then when they point out that your claims are simply not based in reality, you shift from debate into opinion mode.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. To say that real sadists do not enjoy recieving pain themselves, or that they hate the fact the other person is enjoying it, is not expressing personal opinion, you are making claims just like you have with other things. These claims are debatable, and unlike you, many here have more than just personal opinion or POV's to back up what they say.

So if you want to say...That you as a sadist hate it when the other person enjoys recieving pain, then say that. If you want to say...that you as a sadist do not like to recieve pain, then say that. But don't try make claims in the guise of opinion and then get bent when people call you on your bullshit.

Class dismissed

I have to say a big THANK YOU RJ for going to all that trouble.
All I've seen from you previously re: my posts has been nothing like the standard of the above. Not a crit. of previous posts but a way of saying how good the above is.
Again I'm polluting this thread talking about "my POV" & hope we can draw a line soon & get back to 'Not Dom not Sub'. Having said that I'm always happy to talk about anything. All you had to say to me you could have PMd but I DO understand you wanting to say it all in public in the forum which is just what the forum is for anyway to my way of thinking. You are clearing the air & that can only be good. I do apreciate your efforts here.
I like your use of words and their meanings - That's nice & sharp & precise.
I like your loyalty - The 'A Few Good Men' quote you previously used has great resonance (It was you who used that, wasn't it?).
Everything you're calling me on above is also nice and sharp. Swapping from technique to technique etc.
It's no secret what brought me to Lit. & I've also tried to explain why I've stayed and actually bothered to register & post.
Lit. IS really interesting. And the quality of your argument above proves how much better it could be too.
I honestly believe that there are very few dumb-dumbs here. But I do see a 'dumbing-down' sometimes in what people discuss & how they discuss it. This waste of potential bugs me not just on Lit. but on the net. as a whole. Lit. is the only site I have ever cared enough about to try to talk about all this on. I took quite a risk in doing so, imagining I was being unproffessional in talking about Net analysis, but oddly all my posts here have done is to raise my profile. That wasn't my intention, but it's a nice pay-back for sticking my neck out.
So how can I answer your post? Only by saying if you are so smart (and you obviously ARE) why not always be so smart? Your influence could raise the bar here, you never know.
WHY does it take an 'outsider' to say this?
Here's another POV: Lit. needs a little less consensus in the mix to keep it alive & truely meaningful. You need more of a mix of opinions from 'out there', 'way out there', 'left field' etc - call it what you like. Whoever started the 'Cliques' thread was almost there - It's not that Lit. is cliquey so much it's that the ideas here are often getting very 'samey' after a while. Without fresh input you will stagnate, drift into "group-think", and merely end up talking to yourselves. Not a forum but an echo-chamber.
Just a POV from an outsider & a newbie here. And as always not an attack but an attempt to give information from another world outside Lit.
Talk to me anytime... But only if ya wanna

Jenny

 

[SpectreT]

As to why the conversation isn't always on that level; simply put, it's not "natural". Outside of the classroom, no one discusses topics to that extreme level of exactitude. It simply isn't necessary in everyday life, which posting here is part of, for many who do.

I for one, generally try to whittle down every single thought and idea I have to its absolute core; if you need a three hundred page dissertation to communicate something, you're not contributing knowledge, you're intellectually masturbating. (no offense intended to those who carry a "Piled higher & Deeper", of course.)

As to the homogenization (Is that actually a word? Yes it is.) of ideas; there's some of that, sure. In this case it's more along the lines of a community forming a consensus, and occasionally kicking around variations on a theme. Some of us grow and change as individuals, and thus bring something new to an old topic, as well.

we get quite a few outsiders stirring the pot; when we react badly is when the pot-stirring turns into shit-stirring. And there are enough people here that it takes more than just one of us to truly "call bullshit" on an idea or post. Our "bullshit detectors" are all tuned a little differently.

 

[Let_it_come]

As to why the conversation isn't always on that level; simply put, it's not "natural". Outside of the classroom, no one discusses topics to that extreme level of exactitude. It simply isn't necessary in everyday life, which posting here is part of, for many who do.

I for one, generally try to whittle down every single thought and idea I have to its absolute core; if you need a three hundred page dissertation to communicate something, you're not contributing knowledge, you're intellectually masturbating. (no offense intended to those who carry a "Piled higher & Deeper", of course.)

As to the homogenization (Is that actually a word? Yes it is.) of ideas; there's some of that, sure. In this case it's more along the lines of a community forming a consensus, and occasionally kicking around variations on a theme. Some of us grow and change as individuals, and thus bring something new to an old topic, as well.

we get quite a few outsiders stirring the pot; when we react badly is when the pot-stirring turns into shit-stirring. And there are enough people here that it takes more than just one of us to truly "call bullshit" on an idea or post. Our "bullshit detectors" are all tuned a little differently.

Again I like that.
I've fooled with RJ because he's fooled with me. Such is life.
I did like his post though. He IS smart.
The "Bullshit" issue is another relative one - Obviously to RJ I'm talking BS (& probably to certain others too, I'm sure) I'm fine with that. It's all a part of the debate/dialogue/discussion.
One mans BS is another's 'different POV'.
But we should draw a line here soon you know 'cos this could just go on... and on... and on...
Back to Subs & Doms?

(If not I'm always up for more debate/discussion/dialogue...)

 

[Pure]

sun said, note to RJ

I'm noticing this thread late because I don't hang out in this forum much, but I'm one of those people who is neither a dom nor a sub, I'm an assertive who is happiest with an equal partner. I don't like giving or receiving pain either, I'm around here because I'm interested in pet play, spoiling (whether the guy is a daddy dom or a money slave), and I'm a woman who doesn't shave, all fetishy things that get lumped in with BDSM.

So, was there a question?

I posted some questions on 7-18 in #15, and on 7-19 in #19. I take it you have an interest in 'all fetishy things'. Care to expand?

Note to RJ:

I'm not sure why it took 580 words to express your preference for discussion and to state that 'debate' involves 'attacking another's position' and what, in your view, are proper ways of attacking a position. But I think you agree there can be friendly debate or friendly disagreement in discussion.

I do take your point that simply saying "It's my POV [or opinion]" or "That's your POV [opinion], and mine is different." is not productive for debate or discussion. Be it discussion or debate, hearing a person's reasons and evidence is what can make the exchange productive.

It is likely true that Ms. Let it has been a little too ready to say that, perhaps as a way of defusing attack. OTOH, she has described a 'true sadist' which, as dex says, seems like a valid concept. (and not just a POV!). And she has elaborated a bit. I particularly liked her statement about the ability of said sadist to *enjoy the display of cruelty in others*, including when it's directed at her. That is a psychological dimension ["identification"] that is not often mentioned around here, afaik.

 

[sunandshadow]

I'm noticing this thread late because I don't hang out in this forum much, but I'm one of those people who is neither a dom nor a sub, I'm an assertive who is happiest with an equal partner. I don't like giving or receiving pain either, I'm around here because I'm interested in pet play, spoiling (whether the guy is a daddy dom or a money slave), and I'm a woman who doesn't shave, all fetishy things that get lumped in with BDSM.

So, was there a question?

I posted some questions on 7-18 in #15, and on 7-19 in #19. I take it you have an interest in 'all fetishy things'. Care to expand?

Erm, you parsed that wrong I didn't mean I like everything fetishy, there are lots of fetishy things I think are icky; I meant all the things I listed (pet play, spoiling, hairiness) are fetishy things. Some other things I like are pregnancy (including extreme pregnancy, male pregnancy, non-human pregnancy), and all sorts of roleplay and costumes including crossdresssing.

1) how do such desires, or their practice, fit, if they do, with psychic health and sanity? or more basically, how may life with them be made tolerable?

2) what are the ways of imaginatively/artistically expressing or fulfilling those desires? [taking writing/reading or stories as just one example] what are the stories to be written? to be enjoyed?

1) I am lucky in that my fetishes aren't dangerous and fit easily into my life except pregnancy; it frustrates me that I haven't yet found a guy who's interested in marrying me and getting me pregnant, but I'm reasonably content fantasizing and writing stories about pregnancy while I wait for it to become safe to happen in real life.

2) I think that the basic sexual fantasy story is a Mary-sue/Marty-stu story. This is a story where the main character is an idealized version of the author who gets to have adventures and meet people in ways which fulfill the author's fantasies. I'm a semi-professional writer, so I can make my characters seem original and realistically flawed so that they don't take the criticism some Mary-sue stories do, but they are at heart based on a daydream of an idealized version of myself acting out a fantasy. I collect concepts with catch my attention or seem to 'resonate' with my soul, then analyze them to see what aspects of them are the important ones, and how I can twist or combine them to most powerfully get at my innermost desires.

3) To what extent may the set of desires be fulfilled is any social way, i.e. with some consideration for the other.

4) To what extent does the set of desires fit--if it does-- with friendships--or must it exist outside or alongside them. (Do friends and sexually satisfying partners form two entirely separate groups?)

5) To what extent does the set of desires fit--if it does-- with a loving relationship.

3) Roleplaying is an essentially cooperative activity - you can't do it without an enthusiastic partner, unless you consider writing fiction to be a form of roleplaying. And I am a very empathetic person, half of my arousal is always the result of my partner's enthusiasm.

4) I see friends and romantic interests as two separate group. I would have sex with a friend, but it would just be playing, it wouldn't be intense and meaningful like it would with a romantic partner.

5) My desires limit the pool of people I would consider to be acceptable LTR partners, because I wouldn't want to be in a committed relationship with someone who didn't want children or didn't like roleplaying. But again, I am lucky that none of my desires are inherently incompatible with a loving relationship.

 

[RJMasters]

I'm noticing this thread late because I don't hang out in this forum much, but I'm one of those people who is neither a dom nor a sub, I'm an assertive who is happiest with an equal partner. I don't like giving or receiving pain either, I'm around here because I'm interested in pet play, spoiling (whether the guy is a daddy dom or a money slave), and I'm a woman who doesn't shave, all fetishy things that get lumped in with BDSM.

So, was there a question?

I posted some questions on 7-18 in #15, and on 7-19 in #19. I take it you have an interest in 'all fetishy things'. Care to expand?

Note to RJ:

I'm not sure why it took 580 words to express your preference for discussion and to state that 'debate' involves 'attacking another's position' and what, in your view, are proper ways of attacking a position. But I think you agree there can be friendly debate or friendly disagreement in discussion.

I do take your point that simply saying "It's my POV [or opinion]" or "That's your POV [opinion], and mine is different." is not productive for debate or discussion. Be it discussion or debate, hearing a person's reasons and evidence is what can make the exchange productive.

It is likely true that Ms. Let it has been a little too ready to say that, perhaps as a way of defusing attack. OTOH, she has described a 'true sadist' which, as dex says, seems like a valid concept. (and not just a POV!). And she has elaborated a bit. I particularly liked her statement about the ability of said sadist to *enjoy the display of cruelty in others*, including when it's directed at her. That is a psychological dimension ["identification"] that is not often mentioned around here, afaik.

Think what you want, as usual you missed what my point was, but I won't bother wasting my time explaining to you.

 

[catalina_francisco]

LOL!
I get ya, don't worry (not that you were, etc).
But why join a forum if you aren't interested in debate?
I'm interested in everybody's POV.
By ignoring any forum menber all you do is deprive yourself of really knowing what is going on, maybe?

As no doubt you have seen in many threads and discussions here, I have always supported and encouraged discussion of varying P'sOV....perhaps that is why you mention it. What I see happening here, and partly supported by your comment that you have taken yourself to another thread as well to try and get your POV across, is that you are in fact IMO trying to promote your version as the 'true' one or at least feel supported in it. I don't say this out of malice but by observation that while people were and are responding to your posts on one thread you feel the need to go to another thread (with said announcement) because you want to get your POV across...how else can this be taken but to assume you mean that while you have been noticed (hence various discussions between you and others about yours and their POV), you do not feel noticed unless presumably they agree with you? I can't speak for others but I get to a point where if I have stated something, explained something, or seen others do the same and yet someone keeps restating the same as they have been all along as if nothing has been said that either they are not getting it or are not trying to and no amount of discussion is going to change that...sometimes a little time without more feeding allows for that to happen naturally and the penny to drop.

As has been said, your view of sadism is what is termed clinical sadism or psychopathic sadism by the mental health profession, not what is generally practiced by people into any parts of the BDSM spectrum when operating from a SSC position, though they may find the clinical version appealing on a fantasy level in some respects. There have been several good discussions here about the differences, the moral and ethical value of both in relation to the lifestyle, and how it pertains to people here individually and/or collectively. While the discussion is always an interesting one, some do not elaborate as much on it (or other topics) anymore because they are maybe busy with other things, they feel they have said it all before several times which sometimes leads to feeling jaded to try and go through again, or they feel they have stated what they feel like and don't feel like the long debate again when what they say is not recognised for what it is.

It is compounded even more when in relation to someone who does make a lot of comments which are seen by some as troll like, antagonising, smart mouthed, or any number of negative connotations...not to mention your little speech about using everyone for research I seem to recall seeing (given I also have done academic research studies, I find it hard to believe based on your childish conduct and lack of professional and ethical research or social behaviour that you are even old enough, let alone legitimate to be a researcher...if you are, you have breached the guidelines of research which make it real and acceptable as a piece of academic reference)...people tend to not like that sort of thing, especially as you would not be the first to have betrayed people here in a similar way after establishing a level of trust, and they then find it more difficult or less interesting to take one seriously whether they believe it or not. People here on the whole seem to value openness, honesty, lack of pretention, respect, and genuineness...try anything which can be viewed as suspect and it is likely to bite you in the arse when perhaps you don't want it to...not surprising really. I for one admittedly developed an aversion to taking you seriously very quickly, but then I am often said to be too serious at times.

So if you are wanting more from me as to whether someone can be both S & M, my answer is they can easily if that is who they are. I have personally discovered my sadistic side, though I am also a masochist. Perhaps it is just a reflection of the other, or an appreciation for what is felt and craved which allows me to deliver it as well when needed. I really can't see the difference you are speaking of in relation it D/s and SM relationships as for happiness and fulfilment, both require a partner who shares and understands your desires and needs in a symbiotic way, not has the exact same ones as yourself.

Catalina