SMACK--a concept, a gathering. Welcome.

[catalina_francisco]

i agree and add that it does take a fair amount of knowledge of the person you are inflicting the degradation upon. While i might not feel degraded by being called names (whore, slut, etc.), i might feel degraded by being made to urinate myself and to sit in it until given permission to clean up. It's all in the hot buttons (emotional/mental sensitive places) and knowing which ones to push.

lara

...and for the recipient, if they so desire, being self knowledgeable and strong enough to place it in a framework mentally which takes the sting of degradation away making it impotent.

Catalina

 

[s'lara]

...and for the recipient, if they so desire, being self knowledgeable and strong enough to place it in a framework mentally which takes the sting of degradation away making it impotent.

Catalina

Agreed. What is it about degradation that is alluring? Is it because the act of debasement is short-lived, but intense? Well, based on what you said C, putting the degradation in its place mentally and emotionally without dwelling on it does make it short-lived. But i wonder at the pleasure found in such play. Truly heady stuff and certainly not for everyone.

i think Pure was on the right track. The contempt factor. What do you think? And others?

lara

 

[Pure]

Hi Catalina,

you said
most people don't realise is most times they feel degraded by another it is because it comes back to their own insecurities, judegments, perceptions which allow them to feel degraded. Someone may seek to degrade another, but it also is to a large degree reliant on the other accepting that degradation into their own reality.

that's a good insight, and you applied it thus, which is fair enough:

the recipient, if they so desire, being self knowledgeable and strong enough to place it in a framework mentally which takes the sting of degradation away making it impotent.

My own view is that the 'sting' is what one's after, as in lara's example just given.

Distinguish passing/pushing limits (an old problem) from what might be called frame violation . The first can involve something so simple as extending a beating to 20 mins, instead of 15 as pre-agreed. Or using a cane instead of a stick.

The possibilities of cruelty then are somewhat limited (as to effect). If you find a person's "frame," the way they see the world and how it's supposed to be, then the possibilities are vastly extended.

a_bit_kinky just doesn't think a nice and hot young lady should have her 'treasure' spat upon. she would not even think to declare that a limit, beforehand. it's outside her frame. it does NOT happen to young ladies.

if a_bit_kinky were *more* than a bit kinky, and were drawn to (and laid herself open to) something quite 'beyond', then the person who violates her frame, spits on her pussy and fucks her, inflicts a quite shocking and severe cruelty, which--depending on her serious 'kink'-- may have erotic potential. if i read her correctly, that's what lara is getting at.

while resistance is key--one wants a certain amt-- in my pov the bottom's 'success' is making the inflictions 'impotent' is not the direction of most interest. you're talking of 'empowering' the bottom, and i'm talking of subverting that power.

in any case, welcome. your points are presented well.

J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Agreed. What is it about degradation that is alluring? Is it because the act of debasement is short-lived, but intense? Well, based on what you said C, putting the degradation in its place mentally and emotionally without dwelling on it does make it short-lived. But i wonder at the pleasure found in such play. Truly heady stuff and certainly not for everyone.

i think Pure was on the right track. The contempt factor. What do you think? And others?

lara

LOL..I don't actually buy into the contempt idea overly much, at least not coming from my Dominant...others may have contempt but then that would be his choice and desire to encourage it. Though I believe I can mentally (given the opportunity) put myself in a position of not accepting the degradation, it defeats the purpose for me to do that so I try not to. Is tempting at times when I just feel I cannot endure or get through what he expects, but then I know myself and him well enough to know he is right when he recognises I get off on the things which bring out those darker and tumultuous emotions, just as he does in orchestrating them.

I am not sure what actually feeds the need for and pleasure in degradation. Perhaps it is a recognition of deeper emotions in each other we both seek to go down this path, maybe a need to feed and feel the range of emotions degradation of varying scales can induce. Most of our degradation is through the use of others, either personally or in a presence sense. I guess the reason is that there is nothing I can think of him doing between just him and I which would cause me to feel degraded. To me the love we have rules out that, and I guess as we are a couple of perverted souls there is nothing I can think of off the top of my head which I would find degrading. Even if it were momentarily degrading, it would be overcome with pleasure in a fraction of a moment. Involving others will have a much longer term, possibly permanent effect though, which I unashamedly admit tantalises the heck out of me, but will not be easily achieved.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi Catalina,

you said

the recipient, if they so desire, being self knowledgeable and strong enough to place it in a framework mentally which takes the sting of degradation away making it impotent.

My own view is that the 'sting' is what one's after, as in lara's example just given.

Yes it is, but some are not looking for that and do not welcome it. Those may choose to use a method which renders the purpose of the exercise impotent, though to me that would be dishonest as it wold be working against the Dominants desires.

Distinguish passing/pushing limits (an old problem) from what might be called frame violation . The first can involve something so simple as extending a beating to 20 mins, instead of 15 as pre-agreed. Or using a cane instead of a stick.

The possibilities of cruelty then are somewhat limited (as to effect). If you find a person's "frame," the way they see the world and how it's supposed to be, then the possibilities are vastly extended.

Perhaps it is too late at night for me to get this point. I don't think of beating in my D/s relationship as degrading, though others may.

a_bit_kinky just doesn't think a nice and hot young lady should have her 'treasure' spat upon. she would not even think to declare that a limit, beforehand. it's outside her frame. it does NOT happen to young ladies.

Ah, but I am not a nice young lady..and I have usually made sure what I am getting into before making steps to get there, so with the vivid and perverted imagination I have there is nothjing I have had suggested to me in this or other relationships which I have not already toyed with in my own mind....given that, things I have at times fet were beyond my realm of wanting or being able to accomplish, I have mentioned up front, not waited to have it sprung on me...then there is also the chance you take it will still be used anyway, maybe just because you have been silly enough to make the other aware of your difficulties. Sometimes there is danger in presenting such tempting morsels of disgust for your Dominant's memory banks.

if a_bit_kinky were *more* than a bit kinky, and were drawn to (and laid herself open to) something quite 'beyond', then the person who violates her frame, spits on her pussy and fucks her, inflicts a quite shocking and severe cruelty, which--depending on her serious 'kink'-- may have erotic potential. if i read her correctly, that's what lara is getting at.

True in part but I am still astounded a little that someone would find spit used as lube a strange, kinky and degrading thing. Even in my vanilla days it was not unusual in certain moments as a means to an end.

while resistance is key--one wants a certain amt-- in my pov the bottom's 'success' is making the inflictions 'impotent' is not the direction of most interest. you're talking of 'empowering' the bottom, and i'm talking of subverting that power.

Yes that is right, but I did not advocate it was essentially correct to do it, just it was possible for those shoosing to avoid being degraded. If it is in a non consensual situation, which might from my understanding come under your definition of scenarios for the thread, it would be just as fair for the non consenting bottom to protect themselves in this way, and maybe self destructive or stupid not to. If in a situation such as I where there are no limits, it would not.


Catalina

 

[Quint]

1.) Perhaps her words were a trifle too provocative, her eyes cast forward in too bold a challenge. More likely, he just felt the heat rising from her body, the breath coming hot and fast, the tension twisted into her muscles, readying them for--what? Certainly not to fight back. Probably not to run. He knew that she wanted it, and he liked that, liked very much seeing the desire in her eyes. What he liked much more was the look in her eyes when she suddenly stopped having fun--and realized there was nothing she could do about it.

He knew that she wanted it. He also knew how to make that stop.

Slowly his lips twisted backwards off his teeth before fully opening in laughter. No pretention of respect, no illusion left about what she was here for. What she was.

Her skin suddenly felt cold, her arousal gone. She didn't expect this. A question showed in her eyes, seeking his face, finding no answer but contempt for asking. She tried to look away. Tried to smile, the effort crumbling before visible. Still he kept laughing. No escape. She couldn't take it. Couldn't face it. Couldn't accept it. So, heart pounding, mouth twisting, she spat in his face, and she relished the temporary empowerment that flooded her. Until his hand came up.

As with her move, his was done completely by reaction. The difference was, he was stronger. As if seen through a strobe light, he watched her eyes widen incrementally through the blur of his moving hand. Collision. The red shiver of cheekflesh was a banner before him and he grinned even as he responded, as the back of his hand made a matching flag appear on the other side. "Bitch," he thought. "Bitch." His vision was crimson.

She fell too soon, repentant in ways Catholics do not dream of. He stood over her trembling form. Her face was twisted and ugly, streaked with tears and not enough blood to appease the dark thirsty god inside him, certainly not enough to justify the pathetic sobbing he heard coming from her. Conquered. Now he laughed, and this time she simply flinched and did not raise so much as her eyes to him.

 

[Pure]

That's a fine little piece, there, Quint, thanks. It has a few themes related to this thread. All are encouraged to write or submit (a bit of) other authors' writing which seems to convey or evoke the basic themes of the thread.

Sexual encounter as agonistic. Heightening of 'resistance.'
A kind of evaporation of desire or maybe willingness (she 'wanted it').

Better than that, the two make it more that way through provocation. This is fresh, because often two about to get it on try to smooth over differences, convince themselves the other's OK, nice, etc. Cover up any ill feeling of their own, etc.

This is the sort of thing I see in the line,
//he liked much more was the look in her eyes when she suddenly stopped having fun//

The correctly wired male finds the woman reluctant, and makes moves to show her pleasure and 'fun'--kissing her, for instance, melts her will. In this example, the man goes the other way. Which, imo, makes the guy a sadist.

But this is the ingenious variation:. A well known 'macho' story line is to find a semi-willing woman and get rough (say rip open her blouse) so as to make her 'fight back' and be material for conquest. Occasionally, in a romance novel, the woman is a bit provocative, shoving her tits towards him, to 'bring out the animal', make it happen.

Here, however, the sadist-waiting-to-happen is deliberately provoked with a gross insult. ** The woman is after a violent reaction, as much as in her power (paradoxically), she is going to ensure her brutal disempowerment.

The writing is occasionally a bit 'over the top', but it's a fine piece in illustrating nuances and what the SMACK 'first statement' calls, 'genuine imposition.' I presume it's likely by you, and have no doubt you deeply grasp the concept, as distinct from pre-arranged 'domination' episodes. I think also you understand the phrase [avoiding] 'routines of sexual barter.'

======

**This has affinities to the following. Consider the scene of a romance novel where a woman solicits an advance, then *slaps the face* of the would be lover. (Reminds me of Scarlett OHara, for some reason.) This is a quasi violent provocation to erotic aggression.

Question: is the woman's act, above (spitting) cheekily reckless, or an attempt to control or ??

 

[catalina_francisco]

Here, by contrast, the sadist-waiting-to-happen is deliberately provoked with a gross insult. The woman is after a violent reaction, as much as in her power (paradoxically), she is going to ensure her brutal disempowerment.

I much prefer 'my' sadist to not need my provoking him, thus it is his idea, his will, his power, not something I am suggesting for my pleasure. Works well for us though admittedly is part instinct and part getting to know each other through various means of communication.

Catalina

 

[Limbhugger]

s'lara and catalina

Beautiful words. Thank you for expressing my feelings through your own with such candor and eloquence.

Hugger

 

[Quint]

Thanks, Pure. Was just a variation on a theme. I wanted to toy with the idea of rageplay, though I think I introduced the notion a little sloppily. Certainly deliberate provocation on the victim's part is not necessary, nor is it necessarily accurate. Sometimes I do want to push the little red "Sadist" button, but most of the time I'm much smarter than that---he wants me hurt, I'll get hurt, and usually much more than I would have wanted. So the idea is workable but maybe not always desirable.

Glad you caught and enjoyed the reverse-stereotypical exchange of power. Not big on seduction, myself. I'll see what else I can do on the theme of fury. Fascinated with pure reaction and force.

 

[bridgeburner]

Did she mean to provoke him? Was she asking for more? I think it equally plausible that she reacted purely on instinct --- she fought back against his contempt without thinking of what the consequences might be.


Ridicule is one of the easiest ways to provoke rage in another unless they happen to be the type to get off on it. Even then, I think it depends on who's doing the ridiculing and how.

It makes me think of schoolyards. Kids dish out a lot of abuse to one another and it more often than not takes the form of ridicule rather than violence. There's a pecking order and your status is determined by who and how many dish it out to you.

Plenty of victims are provoked to rage but others of them decide that they will cultivate such attention as a means of dealing with it. The thought being that if they invite the taunts or are quicker to denigrate themselves or more clever about it than others that they have gained some power over it. --- They humiliate themselves better or quicker than others thereby stealing that thunder from their would-be tormenters.

There's a certain amount of power in being able to take abuse for whatever reason. It undermines the power of the abuser if he cannot affect his target as he wishes.


-B

 

[bridgeburner]

What primarily about SMACK interests me?

The eroticism of tyranny has been apparent to me from my earliest sexual awareness.

The amorality of sexual impulse is a given in my mind. This is pure dino-brain stuff. Your impulses are id no matter what actions you eventually take. I'm more and more irritated with the idea that humans are not animals --- that our natural state is to be kind to others and live in harmony. This is hippy, new-age bullshit.

The disinterest with 'PC' - I think the idea behind PC is a good one, but I'm sickened by the thought-police aspect that has grown up around it and taken over. You can examine ideas without subscribing to them. The very fact of mentioning an interest in something doesn't make you a criminal. I also get tired of reading 92 excuses and explanations before someone can get to the point --- "I'm not a racist and this isn't really something I'd promote but I heard this the other day and I thought maybe possibly the issue might be interesting to discuss so long as well all take an oath up front that we're not biggots and haters." Maybe you really are a biggot or a hater but what's that got to do with anything?


The focus on other than lifestyle BDsM. In my limited experience lifestyle BDsM tends to be pretty conventional. There are rules and accepted attitudes and courses of thought. There are also vehemently disparaged courses of thought and I find that limiting. The things that appeal to me about BDsM are not the constructs of the relationships any more than the constructs of vanilla relationships are what appeal to me about watching straight porn. Who really wants to talk about somebody else's relationship? We only want to talk about our own relationships and maybe those of our friends. The point for me is that there has not seemed to be much attention given to the sexual impulses underlying BDsM when not occurring in some kind of formally recognized structure.

Let me be clear that I don't disparage anyone's chosen path, but I find that much of what I encounter on these boards holds only a partial interest for me primarily because it focuses so often on those things that I don't care much about -- how one enters a 24/7 relationship, what kind of contracts need to be agreed to, what is acceptible behavior for a Dom/sub. Who's really a Dom/sub, who's really in the Scene and who's a poseur and what SSC means to each individual.



-B

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think you have a valid point, so given that Bridgeburner, what is it you want to discuss? I think many discussions here are limited, some by experience, some by boundaries and limits, some by fear, some by just plain not enough people wanting to discuss sensibly and rationally anything which falls outside the realm of 'normal' in relation to BDSM and their perception.

Catalina

 

[Quint]

Did she mean to provoke him? Was she asking for more? I think it equally plausible that she reacted purely on instinct --- she fought back against his contempt without thinking of what the consequences might be.

Good points. The line that makes me feel it was more instinctive than anything else is that she "she relished the temporary empowerment that flooded her" at her action. She wanted that laughter to stop; she didn't want to continue feeling whatever emotion it evoked. This is where I tend to diverge from my character; it takes one hell of a shocker to get me to react by sheer instinct. I just think too damn much when I'm not immediately in pain, which tends to distract me.

Ridicule is one of the easiest ways to provoke rage in another unless they happen to be the type to get off on it. Even then, I think it depends on who's doing the ridiculing and how.

It makes me think of schoolyards. Kids dish out a lot of abuse to one another and it more often than not takes the form of ridicule rather than violence. There's a pecking order and your status is determined by who and how many dish it out to you.

Plenty of victims are provoked to rage but others of them decide that they will cultivate such attention as a means of dealing with it. The thought being that if they invite the taunts or are quicker to denigrate themselves or more clever about it than others that they have gained some power over it. --- They humiliate themselves better or quicker than others thereby stealing that thunder from their would-be tormenters.

There's a certain amount of power in being able to take abuse for whatever reason. It undermines the power of the abuser if he cannot affect his target as he wishes.


-B

Now that brings me back. I honestly hated being ridiculed. My self-esteem was fragile and about 80% based on "what would others think of me?" from junior high to college. Not remarkable, but certainly not the groundwork for someone who plays on the humiliation field. Is it the comparative safety? (Why would I consider this safe?) It's not always "play." And he knows me better, knows what hurts me better, than any equally-insecure bully on the playground. Maybe this is like caviar---it's a taste I had to grow into.

Pondering.

 

[s'lara]

i think you confidently displayed reactionary rage quite well Quint ... on both sides. Bravo, i liked it very much. i particularly liked the immediate backhand from the male character ... it was truly angry, out of control and it made me sit up. Well done.

i am also interested in that which makes the animal rattle his/her cage. The writing provided by Quint is a good example of how the woman's animal raged instinctually at the male character when she realized he found pleasure in her intimidation. Spitting (back to that again eh?) in his face was pure rage and firey indignation. Loved it, but with that said, i believe it takes a lot to push someone into an involuntary display of anger such as what was reflected in Quint's blurb.

Bridgeburner, i do agree with much of what you have said, but i also have to join Catalina in asking what you would like to discuss now. You've made it clear where you stand in terms of examining and discussing BDSM without the oft repeated rules and regulations of SSC. So, what areas of primal impulses would you like to explore here? i think Quint's got a good subject going ... rage and the sexualization of it. Thoughts?

lara

 

[bridgeburner]

Catalina & s'lara,

It wasn't so much a post about "here is what I will now discuss" as a comment on what about SMACK appeals to me and why I'm drawn to this thread.

I'm very interested in the current issue of rage and ridicule and the unexpected instinctual response.



-B

 

[Pure]

It occurs to me, Quint, after some thought, and reading lara, that your story was focussed on the rage of the woman. you do show what might be an angry reaction, briefly, in the man, but mainly he's smiling and enjoying.

So I take it then, one 'rage' related topic, has nothing to do with enraging a top or pushing his buttons**. Topic 1. Inducing rage in a bottom, pushing her through ridicule, for instance, till she 'loses it' (flies into a rage). then putting countermeasures or punishments into effect.

she's digging the grave of her own pride, as it were, through losing control.

=====
**which, if it occurs, means something quite odd is happening by way of the bottom controlling events, at least for a time.... as several posters have said.

 

[bridgeburner]

Quint,

The line that makes me feel it was more instinctive than anything else is that she "she relished the temporary empowerment that flooded her" at her action.

It wasn't any one line that did it for me. It honestly never occurred to me that her actions were anything but instictual. I understand the scenario of a bottom provoking a Top in order to get more of something, but this didn't strike me that way at all.

I honestly hated being ridiculed. My self-esteem was fragile and about 80% based on "what would others think of me?" from junior high to college. Not remarkable, but certainly not the groundwork for someone who plays on the humiliation field. Is it the comparative safety? (Why would I consider this safe?) It's not always "play." And he knows me better, knows what hurts me better, than any equally-insecure bully on the playground. Maybe this is like caviar---it's a taste I had to grow into.

I hate being humiliated. Loathe it to the point of violence. I very much identified with the action of the female character in the scene above. It would've provoked my rage to be in such a situation. I've always been careful not to act on that rage for the most part ---- even when I've acted it's rarely been full force. I think it's partially because I feel that my rage may be out of all proportion to the situation at hand. Certainly it has been when I've lost control of it.

At the same time, however, I can see the erotic appeal of humiliation --- so long as it's not mine or being inflicted by me.

Does that make me a humiliation voyeur?


-B

 

[bridgeburner]

she's digging the grave of her own pride, as it were, through losing control.

Exactly --- which is likely another reason that I keep a tight reign on my own rage. If you have rage and you're going to let it lose then you'd better be damn sure of the outcome of releasing it or you're only going to get laughed at or your ass kicked which will just make you angrier.

Impotent rage is a vicious cycle.

-B

 

[Quint]

Not fiction: I was listening to a compilation of songs that tend to make me feel....restless. Antsy. Sullen. Confrontational. Pick your favorite; it makes me want someone to challenge me. Be careful, blah blah blah. T came around the corner, saw my stance, smiled. I hunched over even more, my arms actually quivering from holding back the urge to lunge at him and get that smile off his face. He knew. And he would not back down and let me relax. Took a step closer, in fact. Standing over me, eyes locked on mine. God damn him. Finally he reached out--I still don't know if it was an attack or a peace offering. I took it as an attack and I made mine faster. I punched him in the stomach.

Here we split from the above story, where obviously a backhand was warranted. Instead he grabbed my arms at the wrist, bent them up and over my head, and explained very clearly why I should never do anything like that again, and how if I was so stupid as to lose control in such a way, he would punch me. By this point I knew beyond a doubt how little control I had over anything that happened beyond my initial (idiotic) move. Endeth the lesson.

Subrage. I wanted to fight. And at least on the surface level, I wanted to win, and he wouldn't let me. He kept his emotions under control very well, this once, although his subsequent explanation in no uncertain terms convinced me that he would not control his urge to hit back next time. So this was my lesson, my story.

What are we tapping into? Is this spoiled child lashing out, or is it even more lizard-brain than that? Is it different when the bottom responds to sheer anger as opposed to the top?

 

[Netzach]

I'm a calculating heartless fucking bitch.

But I don't think I play as close to the viscerae as the rest of y'all.

My spitting is done with the craven pleading for it. I pry his mouth apart...

inhale....hock....eject.

He swallows it like a sacrament.

 

[Sadie_Maso]

There's a certain amount of power in being able to take abuse for whatever reason. It undermines the power of the abuser if he cannot affect his target as he wishes.

One of the issues I've had with conventional BDSM is that it often doesn't account for these kinds of things in the idea of "power exchange". I've come to realize recently that while I'm strongly sexually submissive, in one sense I use that to gain power, as an act of emotional domination. There is a power trip involved in being able to incite anger in another individual (the old abuse cliche of "he hits me because he cares"). Power in being able to take every blow - above being affected, completely impenetrable. It's not so much "topping from the bottom" as "topping on the bottom", so to speak, or just a fight for the upper hand with no winners.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I've come to realize recently that while I'm strongly sexually submissive, in one sense I use that to gain power, as an act of emotional domination. There is a power trip involved in being able to incite anger in another individual (the old abuse cliche of "he hits me because he cares"). Power in being able to take every blow - above being affected, completely impenetrable. It's not so much "topping from the bottom" as "topping on the bottom", so to speak, or just a fight for the upper hand with no winners.

I've noticed this phenomenon many a time. With these sorts of people one generally gets bogged down in long games of psychic chess; which is sometimes rewarding. I like struggling for the emotional upper hand; but I like to win in the end.

 

[Kajira Callista]

It occurs to me, Quint, after some thought, and reading lara, that your story was focussed on the rage of the woman. you do show what might be an angry reaction, briefly, in the man, but mainly he's smiling and enjoying.

So I take it then, one 'rage' related topic, has nothing to do with enraging a top or pushing his buttons**. Topic 1. Inducing rage in a bottom, pushing her through ridicule, for instance, till she 'loses it' (flies into a rage). then putting countermeasures or punishments into effect.

she's digging the grave of her own pride, as it were, through losing control.

=====
**which, if it occurs, means something quite odd is happening by way of the bottom controlling events, at least for a time.... as several posters have said.

I dunno, i read a little deeper into that, i tend to do that alot...try to get to where things really come from so to speak. Could it have been her way of saying...yes you are right i do want this? I know lot of times my own words and reactions during that type of scene are not what somewhere deep inside me im really wanting. I guess thats why i saw what i did in what was written....he knew....she confirmed.

 

[Pure]

Hi Sadie, welcome,

you said in part,

//I've come to realize recently that while I'm strongly sexually submissive, in one sense I use that to gain power, as an act of emotional domination. There is a power trip involved in being able to incite anger in another individual (the old abuse cliche of "he hits me because he cares"). //

I think that's an excellent point. The 'sub' is many conventional arrangements and episodes is pulling the strings if s/he is arousing the desired emotions in the dom. In short the alleged 'sub' is 'topping' (see definition below at ##) Like the proverbial 'naughty child's' bid for attention.**

Quints story is a bit ambiguous as to whether the Top really gets angry; there's smiling but some indications of at least momentary anger is there, even momentary loss of control. Hence the phrase 'relishing .... brief empowerment.'

In the later factual account, it's quite clear the 'top' remains top: After the punch, he warns her. Which is to say, "Next time, this will happen." Quite matter of factly, even coldly. This is in the neighborhood of the 'rage' erotic episode type 1, that I mentioned; i.e, the bottom is in a rage. Although I had the bottom's rage provoked which is not the case in the factual account. But, Quint, can't you imagine this person intentionally going after this vulnerability?

Sadie, you also said,
Power in being able to take every blow - above being affected, completely impenetrable. It's not so much "topping from the bottom" as "topping on the bottom", so to speak, or just a fight for the upper hand with no winners.

That's not a bad way of putting it. ## Pure and simple, it IS topping, according to one common definition--'running the show.' The 'top' is the one 'running the show' or controlling what happens, or having his/her desires (primarily) met, depending on how you want to put it.

In the accounts of Sade's activities, he asks for whipping with metal tipped lashes, etc. Or to be anally taken. The point is to endure, and come. As you say, there's no pretense of actual bottoming (submitting to another's control or desires), it's just that the 'bottom' is the physical position assumed.

====
** Literary philosophical note. In Neitzsche's Genealogy of Morals, third essay (and elsewhere) there is extended treatment of how Christians, e.g., priests and ascetics, either in flogging/punishing themselves, or having others do it to them, or inducing guilt in others, are exercising power.

In St. Paul, for instance, it says if your enemy is hungry, feed him, don't avenge yourself; it _heaps burning coals on his head_ {Rom 12:20}. I think this is akin to what Kajira is saying.