S&M with no D/s?

[Cirrus]

Is this possible? Personally, I don't think so, but my current friend feels otherwise. When we are together, we play. Hard. And a lot. I am a sub, and I never switch or Top. Or even bottom for that matter. I SUBMIT.

Still, he says we don't REALLY have a D/s relationship because the bedroom is the only place we play. He is not my Master, and I'm not expected to defer to him on anything outside of sexual play.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with this, and I love playing with him. He's responsible and respectful, and I trust him completely.

I just think our definition of what D/s is is a little different.

So clear this up...is it possible to engage is SM without the D/s?

 

[WriterDom]

I would say there is some D/s going on there, but if it works for you and works for him, who cares what you call it.

 

[lovetoread]

Would it not be just be called kink then?

I mean alot of people play without doing any power transfers.

 

[MissTaken]

S and M with no D/s

Hmmmm


Maso stuff could be women or men who beg for pain and actually control the scene in their demands for more or less pain and how it is achieved.

Pain sluts may come across this way.

In terms of sadists, well, perhaps a top who gets off on the blood and screams of a willing or unwilling pain slut, but only if it isn't the power as much as the pain that is the turn on.

Honestly, it seems to me that it would be very unusual for sadism to exist without some sort of power high.

*shrugs shoulders* I guess I am out of answers, folks!

 

[MissTaken]

I would say there is some D/s going on there, but if it works for you and works for him, who cares what you call it.

Bien sur, c'est le reponse mielleur.



Sorry. It just seems that WD's reponse is the best response.

 

[lilredwolph]

i started walking this road, at the age of 15 and it was strictly S&M with no D/s, so I have to say yes there can be 1 without the other.

i was a pain slut ( i guess ), i did not submit to anyone. when i craved pain (and couldn't get from who i was with) i had a "friend" that was willing to administer pain to me. we had no relationship other than sexual, actually we never spoke in public after we began these encounters. it is kind of hard to explain it detail, but basically i got off on pain and he wasn't wasn't getting laid anywhere else so ...

it was just really rough sex, hard core S&M. there wasn't anything truely erotic about it, no floggers, nipple clamps or toys, just closed fists, slaps, and teeth it was about nothing but pain and sex. i came out of our encounters looking like i had been hit by a truck on my way home from a bar fight.


I must ask if there can be D/s without S&M, why can't there be S&M without D/s?

i guess it all depends on how you define Top, Dom/me, Master sub, slave and bottom

 

[luvsubbbbb]

Is this possible? Personally, I don't think so, but my current friend feels otherwise. When we are together, we play. Hard. And a lot. I am a sub, and I never switch or Top. Or even bottom for that matter. I SUBMIT.

Still, he says we don't REALLY have a D/s relationship because the bedroom is the only place we play. He is not my Master, and I'm not expected to defer to him on anything outside of sexual play.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with this, and I love playing with him. He's responsible and respectful, and I trust him completely.

I just think our definition of what D/s is is a little different.

So clear this up...is it possible to engage is SM without the D/s?

most bedroom only scening involves little or no power exchange.

tying someone up during sex is kink play. it is not usually considered D/s unless there is some form of control exerted by one over the other Outside the bedroom.

unless you roleplay a scene in the bedroom involving a form of power exchange which is of limited duration.

in most non-power exchange dynamics i have seen, the bottom controls the scene (as in negotiate what will and will not happen to them during it)

another way of putting it is:

with S & m the focus is on the body

with D/s the focus is in the mind

 

[Caitlynne]

with S & m the focus is on the body

with D/s the focus is in the mind

This is an excellent answer and thank you for posting it.

~ Cait

 

[Grvdigger]

I agree with luvsub....I put it this way..

D/s in the mental aspect, bdsm is the physical. They can and in many aspects do cross over, but do not have to.

 

[LC Rough Caress]

Just as you can have a D/s relationship without involving S&M, you can have an S&M relationship without involving D/s. People can get pretty wild in the throes of passion, and I'm sure everyone has either experienced or heard someone else's experiences about biting and scratching and how they found it enjoyable. Certanily there are some who pursue this without delving into realm of D/s.

 

[RisiaSkye]

So clear this up...is it possible to engage is SM without the D/s?

I think so, yes.

Here's a for-instance: I'm a masochist, as well as a sadist. I also engage in power exchange, but only in the confines of a relationship. However, were I to scene with someone I wasn't really involved with and wasn't planning to play with regularly (like at a play party), I would do so as a bottom but not as a sub. I wouldn't relinquish my power in such a scene, not truly--not even in a temporary "only in the bedroom" kind of way.

The difference between this and a low-level D/s exchange (in my definition) is, I wouldn't be in it for their pleasure as much as my own; I'd be in it for my own pleasure, and would need to weild a considerable amount of "control" over the scene in order to participate in such a scene--one in which I bottomed for someone I wasn't in love with and didn't have trust and respect and all the emotional components necessary to a power exchange in place. The same is true of the reverse; in such a scenario, I would act as Top, but not as a Domme. I would see the other person as a full participant, working with me as an equal in pursuit of sensual pleasure.

Now, such an arrangement may be mutually needs-fulfilling, but in my opinion it isn't D/s as I wouldn't be submitting to another's will, I'd be a masochist staging a gratifying scene with a like minded sadist or vice versa.

JMO, of course.

RS
Resident Something-or-Other

 

[P. B. Walker]

Just to jump on the bandwagon, I also believe there can be S/M without the D/s. In fact, were I to ever try S/M, that would be the only way I would do it.

I kinda think that's the beauty of the D/s, S/M, B/D. They don't all have to be involved. You can have just the D/s, or just the S/M, or just the B/D. Or any interesting mixture thereof.



And like a few others have said, the most important thing is, if it works for you (even in the short term) and you are happy, then go with it and have fun.

PBW

 

[lillum]

For me the two D/s and s/m just go hand in hand.I cant have one and not the other,the two just meld together to make everything ever so right...lillum

 

[A Desert Rose]

Is this possible? Personally, I don't think so, but my current friend feels otherwise. When we are together, we play. Hard. And a lot. I am a sub, and I never switch or Top. Or even bottom for that matter. I SUBMIT.

Still, he says we don't REALLY have a D/s relationship because the bedroom is the only place we play. He is not my Master, and I'm not expected to defer to him on anything outside of sexual play.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with this, and I love playing with him. He's responsible and respectful, and I trust him completely.

I just think our definition of what D/s is is a little different.

So clear this up...is it possible to engage is SM without the D/s?

I don't see how one can engage in s&m without one party being the dominate one. That can change, with each sexual encounter, but one has to be the sadist (dominate) and one the masochist (the one who submits.)

I agree with you Cirrus, that your definitions are not the same. His definition appears to be that D/s is a lifestyle, yours seems to be that it is a sexual preference. I could be wrong but that is how I am reading your thread post.

 

[Ebonyfire]

S & M

I do not think you have to be involved in a power exchange to be involved in S & M.

a masochist just needs a sadist, and vice versa.

Eb

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: S & M

I do not think you have to be involved in a power exchange to be involved in S & M.

a masochist just needs a sadist, and vice versa.

Eb

LMAO, well obviously a whole lot of people disagree with me, so I must be wrong.

Never mind Cirrus...... lol don't listen to me.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Re: S & M

LMAO, well obviously a whole lot of people disagree with me, so I must be wrong.

Never mind Cirrus...... lol don't listen to me.

Lots of people disagree with me all the time, you are entitled to your opinion, lol ADR.

Eb

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: Re: Re: S & M

Lots of people disagree with me all the time, you are entitled to your opinion, lol ADR.

Eb

Oh I know, I don't take it personally. Especially where you are concerned, Eb. ~smile~

 

[Pure]

SM with no DS, would mean that they[SM and DS] are separate/independent and there's some reasons to think they are. As already stated by Risia, Miss T, and others, it's not hard to think of someone undergoing pain, but being in control of the situation. A bossy or directive masochist, as it were.

These two 'persons' below, then, represent extremes that should be possible if SM and DS are independent:

1) A Masochist who's a Dom. Not hard to imagine, as mentioned above. This person says "Here's how the scene will go! I want *this* kind of pain, inflicted with *this instrument, for *this long, till I say stop."

2) A Sadist who's a Sub. This is a little trickier.

a)Is it just the one who works for the person just described, who takes the order I just spelled out?

And gets off on it?

S/he is inflicting a lot of pain on the Dom and enjoying the hell out of it. But what then? Can s/he come? Pursue her pleasure?

It would seem not, at least, not on her own terms. So we have, then a kind of 'tentative' sadist who isn't about to seriously pursue his or her delight in inflicting pain. S/he's going to do it, in just the amount ordered by someone else, then stop.

So there's a problem with this Sadist Sub acting upon his or her own Dom.

b) But how about this? The Dom directs the Sadist Sub to inflict pain on another slave. Perhaps make the Sadist Sub the 'disciplinarion' of the slave household. The sub then may have permission to unleash upon the third parties: Perhaps the Dom has even directed the Sub not to avoid full gratification in disciplining this other sub. Why? Because the punishment of the other sub is richer if it involves being the object of the other slave's (the Sadist Slave's) gratification. Perhaps a receptacle for the Sadist Slave's emission.

Possibly there are still problems in this combination, to do with the 'unleashing' of sadism. But it does not seem entirely implausible.