Top-opolis
- Thread starter rosco rathbone
- Start date
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Unda! Great to see you. The point is to provoke and contest and listen. You're stuff is fresh! Whatever planet you're from, do drop by with these wonderful missives.
PS: Wish I had more time to post. Can't get into a lot of back and forth though, my workload doesn't permit it at this time. So I just want to drop some thoughts in that come from a radically different experience than apparently most people on this forum have. Sometimes when I write shit like the stuff above I feel like a representitive from heaven (note I didn't say angel, lol, I personally don't have the slightest idea what I am doing up there) trying to convince cynical earthmen that only have experience with hell or purgatory that a third option really does exist, lol, and it reminds me of trying to break out of jail by hitting my head against the wall.
PS: Wish I had more time to post. Can't get into a lot of back and forth though, my workload doesn't permit it at this time. So I just want to drop some thoughts in that come from a radically different experience than apparently most people on this forum have. Sometimes when I write shit like the stuff above I feel like a representitive from heaven (note I didn't say angel, lol, I personally don't have the slightest idea what I am doing up there) trying to convince cynical earthmen that only have experience with hell or purgatory that a third option really does exist, lol, and it reminds me of trying to break out of jail by hitting my head against the wall.
Pure said:
I've been out of town and have just read the last few days of Top-opolis. My comments:
1) Thanks, Pure and RR, for a great conversation between two such enlightened perverts.
2) FYI - IMO the only type of sexual encounter where the sub is not in control is in the case of the sub being raped/abused by a person who has no knowledge of the "victim's" sub nature. If the sub is there by CHOICE, then the sub is ALLOWING the Dom/me to pleasure the sub by dominating said sub. Any "rape/abuse" between these two parties is not actually controlled by the Dom/me because the sub nature of the "victim" and the pleasure the "victim" derives from being dominated is common knowledge between the two involved parties. Even if the sub makes a request and is denied that request, the sub is still allowing the Dom/me to pleasure him/her by dominating him/her. Can it be said that the reverse is also true? If both parties know that the sub gets satisfaction from this abuse, I don't think so.
Peace & Luv,
brnsuga
Last edited:
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
UCE said:Darn, you explained it. I was about to quip, "Public Displays of Evil." I'll take the job, as long as you don't mind my "editing" your posts so that you say what you really mean rather than what you actually say.
Only if you take dicktation on your knees, Yuice.
Twas Yuice who first taught me the difference between real and false domination many years ago. Maybe she can explain the top/dom difference and I can just say ""Yeah, that's right".
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
brnsuga said:
Right, except sometimes people let other people get away with more manipulation than they should.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
UCE said:Electrolyes and electrocution one after the other! I'm very sorry to hear about that Roscoe. Were you burned badly?
Unda
The tale is told here:
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=152631
Luckily, I was only blistered. ALso, they couldn't find the "exit wound"-probably because I'd been grounded out over my entire body, or that's what it felt like anyway.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Pure, look at Yuice's descriptions of her happy homelife with her hubbie, the real dom's dom. A top is a man who likes sexual violence and control and perhaps lots of other things like torture and humiliation; without wanting to have to promise all the caring sharing bullshit that is the stock-in-trade of false domination. We used to just be called "kinky".
Sometimes, I want control of more areas than the bedroom: because the world is my bedroom. Everything orbits around fucking real or imagined. So if I make my girly shave her head or wear overalls or blow a bum or bake me a cake, it's because it gets me off.
Maybe I do have a domly side, but I refuse the responsibilty.
Also, I think a real "dom"- as opposed to a top masquerading as a dom in order to get ass-would have no misogyny. I see my sexuality as highly misogynistic. I also see sex relations as part of an unending struggle instead of a cooperative affair.
Furthermore, your DeSade quote about the murderous orgasm struck me on a gut level. I don't see the Yuice's-husband/Zipman type of caring, sharing daddy dom getting off that way. That is the orgasm of a man in the throes of sexual warfare and the feelings of triumph inherent in such a murderous orgasm would seem to me to be part and parcel of a sexual worldview of fundamental struggle.
This relates back to my love of the book The Natural History of Rape by Thornhill and Palmer. That book makes it clear that rape (of which I believe modern consensual violent sex to be merely the civilized extension) is the evolutionarily selected reproductive method of the sexually disenfranchised.
I associate topdom with sexual frustration, sexual insecurity, sexual rage and disenfranchisement; and domdom (true as opposed to false) with sexual security.
Top is war, Dom is false peace.
rizzco=l;{)
Sometimes, I want control of more areas than the bedroom: because the world is my bedroom. Everything orbits around fucking real or imagined. So if I make my girly shave her head or wear overalls or blow a bum or bake me a cake, it's because it gets me off.
Maybe I do have a domly side, but I refuse the responsibilty.
Also, I think a real "dom"- as opposed to a top masquerading as a dom in order to get ass-would have no misogyny. I see my sexuality as highly misogynistic. I also see sex relations as part of an unending struggle instead of a cooperative affair.
Furthermore, your DeSade quote about the murderous orgasm struck me on a gut level. I don't see the Yuice's-husband/Zipman type of caring, sharing daddy dom getting off that way. That is the orgasm of a man in the throes of sexual warfare and the feelings of triumph inherent in such a murderous orgasm would seem to me to be part and parcel of a sexual worldview of fundamental struggle.
This relates back to my love of the book The Natural History of Rape by Thornhill and Palmer. That book makes it clear that rape (of which I believe modern consensual violent sex to be merely the civilized extension) is the evolutionarily selected reproductive method of the sexually disenfranchised.
I associate topdom with sexual frustration, sexual insecurity, sexual rage and disenfranchisement; and domdom (true as opposed to false) with sexual security.
Top is war, Dom is false peace.
rizzco=l;{)
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
brnsuga said:
What I mean to say is that those who fuck with me ought to expect the unexpected, because I strive to avoid being manipulated in any way, even to extent of denying myself things which, emotionally and psychosexually, I want very badly.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi brnsuga,
you said,
2) FYI - IMO the only type of sexual encounter where the sub is not in control is in the case of the sub being raped/abused by a person who has no knowledge of the "victim's" sub nature. If the sub is there by CHOICE, then the sub is ALLOWING the Dom/me to pleasure the sub by dominating said sub. Any "rape/abuse" between these two parties is not actually controlled by the Dom/me because the sub nature of the "victim" and the pleasure the "victim" derives from being dominated is common knowledge between the two involved parties. Even if the sub makes a request and is denied that request, the sub is still allowing the Dom/me to pleasure him/her by dominating him/her
I like your contributions. It looks like we're on the same wavelength here. I said that in predictable routines that people fall into, or 'scenes' they plan, there isn't necessarily any 'domination' by the alleged dom. As you say, because it's the alleged sub's choice, particularly if ongoing, then the alleged sub controls, regardless of the severity of what's happening (alleged sub whipped till blood flows).
Further, as in the case with male 'subs' and prodommes, where the scene is set to the sub's specifications, even paid for by the alleged sub, etc arguably any 'domination' going on is by the 'sub'.
peace, love
J.
you said,
2) FYI - IMO the only type of sexual encounter where the sub is not in control is in the case of the sub being raped/abused by a person who has no knowledge of the "victim's" sub nature. If the sub is there by CHOICE, then the sub is ALLOWING the Dom/me to pleasure the sub by dominating said sub. Any "rape/abuse" between these two parties is not actually controlled by the Dom/me because the sub nature of the "victim" and the pleasure the "victim" derives from being dominated is common knowledge between the two involved parties. Even if the sub makes a request and is denied that request, the sub is still allowing the Dom/me to pleasure him/her by dominating him/her
I like your contributions. It looks like we're on the same wavelength here. I said that in predictable routines that people fall into, or 'scenes' they plan, there isn't necessarily any 'domination' by the alleged dom. As you say, because it's the alleged sub's choice, particularly if ongoing, then the alleged sub controls, regardless of the severity of what's happening (alleged sub whipped till blood flows).
Further, as in the case with male 'subs' and prodommes, where the scene is set to the sub's specifications, even paid for by the alleged sub, etc arguably any 'domination' going on is by the 'sub'.
peace, love
J.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Unda,
[revised, edited, 7:55 pm, 4-22-03]
I will comment on your contributions; they're always stimulating.! I merely give some opinions, and propose some definitions.
Pure's def
Dominate
You dominate someone if your will and desires, to some degree despotically, prevail over another’s. The dominating person, Tyrano , gets the submitting person, Grovela, to do what he wants, as opposed to what she wants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unda said,
First of all, define "despotic," not some off-the-shelf dictionary definition, PLUEEZE, lol, but how _you_ meant it when you wrote it in that sentence.
Despotism is the opposite of democracy and egalitarianism. In a despotic act, one (the despot) asserts one's will or interests, according to one's more or less arbitrary decision. It is not a despotic act, in my book, if the alleged dom and alleged sub, have a discussion about whips and they decide on a specific one (one slightly prefers the narrow strands, but goes along with the other's preference for wide strands), a half hour session, and blows to the ass only. This, then, carried out by the alleged 'dom.'
I think the word choice is unfortunate because the word has emotional tonations of cruel and arbitrary. A good dominant may "fake" arbritariness to give his submissive a kind of thrill that she craves once in awhile, but every important decision he makes is based upon how it will affect her welfare. She is his property after all, and he takes his property management responsibility dead seriously and with great pride at doing it right. I would have chosen the term "benevolent dictator," for that is what the majority of _real_ dominants (not the online boasters) have reminded me of. I live with a benevolent-dictator-conscientious-property-management type and the security and peace I get from knowing somebody is always selflessly (he is selfless, he can't help it and the selfish can't grok that because they don't think such a person so different from them can exist--right, Roscoe?--but nevertheless it is true) looking after my own best interests is priceless.
I'm talking about the activity of dominating. On that alone,
arbitrary, yes. Exactement. Not fake arbtrariness (like playing Genghis Khan in a psychodrama.) Possibly cruel.
In a live-in relationship, however, there's a lot more activities going on, under even the severest domination. What RR calls the 'dom', the dom's dom, always does, imo, some quasi-parental nurturing. Looking after the submitting person, lovingly. That keeps the relationship going. Call such a dom, a Quasi Parental Dom, QPD.
I agree with 'benevolent dictator' for this residential QPD** and I'm glad you said 'dictator'. The 'parenting' then, is likely to be that of an 'old style' parent, not the new age parent who's always saying I'm-your-pal-and-I'll be-happy-to- explain-and-then-we'll-all-vote :
But even a pure despot, a person acting arbitrarily, is not necessarily acting foolishly. He doesn't leave a fine dog out in the snow, wet. As you say, he doesn't damage his property. But he decides--arbitrarily-- whether the dog will sleep in the laundry room, or the master's bedroom. And as I said, it's doubtful that anyone in a relationship could be a pure despot, unless s/he had a pretty weak or sick partner.
As said, this QPD person does more things than dominating. In dominating he's arbitrary. In the quasi parental role, there's things like explaining, besides nurturing.
As to your best interests. If you mean broadly, as to enhance
'self realization' and autonomy, that I don't agree with, as far as the activity of dominating. The point is that the dominating vision is based in the will of the dominating person. The dominating person, however purely so, doesn't wish to be in a despoiled and desolate place: the basic welfare of the submitting person, like that of the prize Labrador is necessarily considered. Enlightened self interest, so to say, doesn't piss off and alienate all persons with whom one comes into contact.
Yet in a relationship, one must be more that a dominating person: communicating, listening, nurturing, caring for, and so on.
There is necessarily, for every QPD, a considering of the other's interests.
Further note, on your dispute with Zip. I agree that questions are not a problem. The domination may well prosper if the submitting person knows what's going to happen. I think of it like the 'spirit' of a fine horse. I want to dominate--ride, control--that horse, but not quench its spirit, its ability, in a way, to resist, while still being under my control ultimately. It's part of my definition, in fact; it's not dominating, to shape something that's mere 'putty' in the hands.
Best,
J.
**There are lots of softer versions of the QPD, which make him or her more a therapist and friend, if you read some of the descriptions on this board.
[revised, edited, 7:55 pm, 4-22-03]
I will comment on your contributions; they're always stimulating.! I merely give some opinions, and propose some definitions.
Pure's def
Dominate
You dominate someone if your will and desires, to some degree despotically, prevail over another’s. The dominating person, Tyrano , gets the submitting person, Grovela, to do what he wants, as opposed to what she wants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unda said,
First of all, define "despotic," not some off-the-shelf dictionary definition, PLUEEZE, lol, but how _you_ meant it when you wrote it in that sentence.
Despotism is the opposite of democracy and egalitarianism. In a despotic act, one (the despot) asserts one's will or interests, according to one's more or less arbitrary decision. It is not a despotic act, in my book, if the alleged dom and alleged sub, have a discussion about whips and they decide on a specific one (one slightly prefers the narrow strands, but goes along with the other's preference for wide strands), a half hour session, and blows to the ass only. This, then, carried out by the alleged 'dom.'
I think the word choice is unfortunate because the word has emotional tonations of cruel and arbitrary. A good dominant may "fake" arbritariness to give his submissive a kind of thrill that she craves once in awhile, but every important decision he makes is based upon how it will affect her welfare. She is his property after all, and he takes his property management responsibility dead seriously and with great pride at doing it right. I would have chosen the term "benevolent dictator," for that is what the majority of _real_ dominants (not the online boasters) have reminded me of. I live with a benevolent-dictator-conscientious-property-management type and the security and peace I get from knowing somebody is always selflessly (he is selfless, he can't help it and the selfish can't grok that because they don't think such a person so different from them can exist--right, Roscoe?--but nevertheless it is true) looking after my own best interests is priceless.
I'm talking about the activity of dominating. On that alone,
arbitrary, yes. Exactement. Not fake arbtrariness (like playing Genghis Khan in a psychodrama.) Possibly cruel.
In a live-in relationship, however, there's a lot more activities going on, under even the severest domination. What RR calls the 'dom', the dom's dom, always does, imo, some quasi-parental nurturing. Looking after the submitting person, lovingly. That keeps the relationship going. Call such a dom, a Quasi Parental Dom, QPD.
I agree with 'benevolent dictator' for this residential QPD** and I'm glad you said 'dictator'. The 'parenting' then, is likely to be that of an 'old style' parent, not the new age parent who's always saying I'm-your-pal-and-I'll be-happy-to- explain-and-then-we'll-all-vote :
But even a pure despot, a person acting arbitrarily, is not necessarily acting foolishly. He doesn't leave a fine dog out in the snow, wet. As you say, he doesn't damage his property. But he decides--arbitrarily-- whether the dog will sleep in the laundry room, or the master's bedroom. And as I said, it's doubtful that anyone in a relationship could be a pure despot, unless s/he had a pretty weak or sick partner.
As said, this QPD person does more things than dominating. In dominating he's arbitrary. In the quasi parental role, there's things like explaining, besides nurturing.
As to your best interests. If you mean broadly, as to enhance
'self realization' and autonomy, that I don't agree with, as far as the activity of dominating. The point is that the dominating vision is based in the will of the dominating person. The dominating person, however purely so, doesn't wish to be in a despoiled and desolate place: the basic welfare of the submitting person, like that of the prize Labrador is necessarily considered. Enlightened self interest, so to say, doesn't piss off and alienate all persons with whom one comes into contact.
Yet in a relationship, one must be more that a dominating person: communicating, listening, nurturing, caring for, and so on.
There is necessarily, for every QPD, a considering of the other's interests.
Further note, on your dispute with Zip. I agree that questions are not a problem. The domination may well prosper if the submitting person knows what's going to happen. I think of it like the 'spirit' of a fine horse. I want to dominate--ride, control--that horse, but not quench its spirit, its ability, in a way, to resist, while still being under my control ultimately. It's part of my definition, in fact; it's not dominating, to shape something that's mere 'putty' in the hands.
Best,
J.
**There are lots of softer versions of the QPD, which make him or her more a therapist and friend, if you read some of the descriptions on this board.
Last edited:
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Someone out there correct me if I'm wrong, but I just don't see how a caring, sharing Daddy Dom/QPD could take malevolent, Sadean jouissance from the act of use and abuse.
Or, and this seems considerably more likely to me, they DO-they just won't admit it; and concoct all sorts of rationalizations such as "I'm helping her cathartize her bad emotions about being fucked by her father" or yadda yadda whatever.
I have never (on the internet, which as I said is my point of contact) seen a QPD admit to any kind of sexual rage or hatred or malevolence. And why should they? They have a good thing going.
Or, and this seems considerably more likely to me, they DO-they just won't admit it; and concoct all sorts of rationalizations such as "I'm helping her cathartize her bad emotions about being fucked by her father" or yadda yadda whatever.
I have never (on the internet, which as I said is my point of contact) seen a QPD admit to any kind of sexual rage or hatred or malevolence. And why should they? They have a good thing going.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi RR,
Pure, look at Yuice's descriptions of her happy homelife with her hubbie, the real dom's dom. A top is a man who likes sexual violence and control and perhaps lots of other things like torture and humiliation; without wanting to have to promise all the caring sharing bullshit that is the stock-in-trade of false domination. We used to just be called "kinky". [...]
I associate topdom with sexual frustration, sexual insecurity, sexual rage and disenfranchisement; and domdom (true as opposed to false) with sexual security.
Top is war, Dom is false peace.
Discussing types of persons, and who has what pattern of living, is harder than discussing actions. Nouns get us into trouble.
Someone gives us a gift and we say she's a benefactor. Then if she steals the silverware, we say "How can a benefactor do something like that; she's a thief". Then, of course, how can a 'thief' ever change?
I'd say you're describing a 'sexual outlaw" SO (which has a different meaning, elsewhere!). I'd say that fellow, is the SOM,
--male-- and there's also the SOF--female, much less common, esp. past the age of 30. It's unfortunate that the term 'top' has lost most meaning, except, perhaps for 'scene-director.'
Yes, I think there's a lot of rage around, disguised from others for erotic pursuits, and from oneself because "I'm not that kind of person."
Don't know about the insecurity, though I'm uneasy in Dworkin-land, happier in Califi-arnia. I'd rather emphasize the agonistic idea. As you say, Top is war; that there ain't no truce, read your Sun Tzu. Do unto anothers as he** would be likely to do to you, if he ever got the chance. This doesn't preclude friendships, noted earlier, but certainly denies the "I'm a friend to all, especially the ladies" approach of the QPD's around here.
** In the natural history, what about 'she'-- what would 'she' do?
Well, I'd say not 'rape' much of the time, but building a home, nurturing the young, trying to get the guy to stick around and direct the rage at those that threaten it. Get him to make the home repairs and sit by the fire at night and dream of the ten heady years--long ago-- he was an SOM. And, it's in her interest if this defender doesn't ask too many questions about the DNA of the offspring he provides for!.
Pure, look at Yuice's descriptions of her happy homelife with her hubbie, the real dom's dom. A top is a man who likes sexual violence and control and perhaps lots of other things like torture and humiliation; without wanting to have to promise all the caring sharing bullshit that is the stock-in-trade of false domination. We used to just be called "kinky". [...]
I associate topdom with sexual frustration, sexual insecurity, sexual rage and disenfranchisement; and domdom (true as opposed to false) with sexual security.
Top is war, Dom is false peace.
Discussing types of persons, and who has what pattern of living, is harder than discussing actions. Nouns get us into trouble.
Someone gives us a gift and we say she's a benefactor. Then if she steals the silverware, we say "How can a benefactor do something like that; she's a thief". Then, of course, how can a 'thief' ever change?
I'd say you're describing a 'sexual outlaw" SO (which has a different meaning, elsewhere!). I'd say that fellow, is the SOM,
--male-- and there's also the SOF--female, much less common, esp. past the age of 30. It's unfortunate that the term 'top' has lost most meaning, except, perhaps for 'scene-director.'
Yes, I think there's a lot of rage around, disguised from others for erotic pursuits, and from oneself because "I'm not that kind of person."
Don't know about the insecurity, though I'm uneasy in Dworkin-land, happier in Califi-arnia. I'd rather emphasize the agonistic idea. As you say, Top is war; that there ain't no truce, read your Sun Tzu. Do unto anothers as he** would be likely to do to you, if he ever got the chance. This doesn't preclude friendships, noted earlier, but certainly denies the "I'm a friend to all, especially the ladies" approach of the QPD's around here.
** In the natural history, what about 'she'-- what would 'she' do?
Well, I'd say not 'rape' much of the time, but building a home, nurturing the young, trying to get the guy to stick around and direct the rage at those that threaten it. Get him to make the home repairs and sit by the fire at night and dream of the ten heady years--long ago-- he was an SOM. And, it's in her interest if this defender doesn't ask too many questions about the DNA of the offspring he provides for!.
Last edited:
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Pure said:
Labels have their uses for the polemicist. You are considerably more objective than I, Pure.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Someone out there correct me if I'm wrong, but I just don't see how a caring, sharing Daddy Dom/QPD could take malevolent, Sadean jouissance from the act of use and abuse.
Yes. The "I care for your insecurities and will help you to overcome them" variety of untra soft, quasi parental dom (QPD) can only see and experience sexual release as 'oceanic', oneness with the beloved and so-on. He believes any other approach to be unethical. His Jewish aunts: the coo-ing friendly let-me-give-you-a cookie-dear variety. Or, "How was it for you." Or, common ending of a bdsm QPD story, "He unbound the ropes and made gentle and passionate love to me."
The view of life as contesting, conflictual, etc., cannot make it a primary duty to see to the other's fulfillment, though of course
wanton rapine and murder is ruled out on the basis of enlightened self interest. Sade: "I am a libertine, not a murderer or a criminal."
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
My theme is and ever was:
that many if not most supposed QPD men have a psychosexuality like mine, but cannot admit it or don't even know it themselves, for one reason or another.
that many if not most supposed QPD men have a psychosexuality like mine, but cannot admit it or don't even know it themselves, for one reason or another.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Sexual Outlaw Female (SOF)
Pat Califia, now Patrick Califia, author of "Macho Sluts" and numerous other stories.
In fiction, Juliette , of Sade's masterpiece by that name.
Cruel, predatory, anally erotic. As for rage, as far as I recall, it's she that goes after her mothers pussy with a sewing needle.
In particular, the reproductive function is seen with the opposite of sentimentality; it is looked at in the way some of the Manichaens do: an evil process tending to add to human misery.
There's another Sadean female figure, can't recall the name, with a clitoris as big as a thumb, who's able to anally take the young boys she encounters.
Perhaps unlike RR, I have more interest in such a figure and I know there are a few around these parts. Is "outlawry" a male preserve? Interesting that Pat Califia took testosterone and became Patrick, a FTM transgendered person.
===
Note
Rage at mother, found in Sade, was perhaps provoked by a tyrannical mother in law who worked to keep him in prison for life without charges or determinate sentence.
Pat Califia, now Patrick Califia, author of "Macho Sluts" and numerous other stories.
In fiction, Juliette , of Sade's masterpiece by that name.
Cruel, predatory, anally erotic. As for rage, as far as I recall, it's she that goes after her mothers pussy with a sewing needle.
In particular, the reproductive function is seen with the opposite of sentimentality; it is looked at in the way some of the Manichaens do: an evil process tending to add to human misery.
There's another Sadean female figure, can't recall the name, with a clitoris as big as a thumb, who's able to anally take the young boys she encounters.
Perhaps unlike RR, I have more interest in such a figure and I know there are a few around these parts. Is "outlawry" a male preserve? Interesting that Pat Califia took testosterone and became Patrick, a FTM transgendered person.
===
Note
Rage at mother, found in Sade, was perhaps provoked by a tyrannical mother in law who worked to keep him in prison for life without charges or determinate sentence.
Last edited:
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
I've read one Pat Califa collection. I found it somewhat interesting, although I haven't all that much time for transgender/queer navel-gazing; much preferring my old school straight-male version. I don't think men have any sole claim to sexual outlawry, though.
In another thread in the General Board, that joker Frimost, one of my favorite Lit posters (though I suspect his humorous effect islargely unintentional), brought up the possibility of clitoral penetration of the male. I wonder if he is a Sadean?
Everyone is talking about DeSade these days. I'll have to check it out of the library. I had all of his main books at one point; but I could never take more than a few pages, usually dipped into at random when I wanted a laugh. Pure keeps coming up with solid gold, though. Maybe he needs to publish a reader's guide to the works of the MDS.
In another thread in the General Board, that joker Frimost, one of my favorite Lit posters (though I suspect his humorous effect islargely unintentional), brought up the possibility of clitoral penetration of the male. I wonder if he is a Sadean?
Everyone is talking about DeSade these days. I'll have to check it out of the library. I had all of his main books at one point; but I could never take more than a few pages, usually dipped into at random when I wanted a laugh. Pure keeps coming up with solid gold, though. Maybe he needs to publish a reader's guide to the works of the MDS.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
I'm reading Frederick Exley's Last Notes From Home now. He appears to be ever more obsessed with oral intercourse than I. References to it appear on every other page.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
I am told that I'm "sexually blase". Me. I think that means that I have a hard time getting excited about pseudopod-in-orifice per se. If I remember right, I was told it was a good thing. This is one reason I don't fuck around with hookers any more. There was a time when I was excited about prostitutes because fucking them seemed like an excellent opportunity to treat someone with contempt. This quickly wore off once I realized that, if I came anywhere close to even starting to fuck them like I like to fuck, I was in for major trouble. Prostitutes are experts at channeling male fucking into the easiest, most comfortable, and quickest modes-obviously, a necesary job skill; and if you seek to avoid confrontations with pimps, bouncers and the law, putting them in an armlock, running their heads into the wall and saying "now we do it my way" are not options.I wish there were prostitutes for my kind of person. There probably are, actually, but just like with everything else, I'd be the last to know. More on prostitutes possibly at some other time.
The only person I could soft easy fuck these days is someone I'd been all the way with. This phenomenon seems to be getting worse and worse as my hair gets greyer and greyer. This brings me to my next point which is dangerous fantasies. I sometimes follow though on things that are potentially disastrous. For instance, against the advice of everyone I know, I tried my damndest to give up a promising career as a welder in order to join the NYPD. I went through the whole application process, passed all the tests, aced the city exam, and was finally Psychologically Disqualified by a blowdried hack PD shrink with a Beatrix-Potterlike name along the lines of, as I recall, "Tabitha Tiddlywinkle".I am told by those in the know that it was a big mistake to draw a ball-on-stilts space house on the moon and a gnome in curley-toed boots with a wizard cap and a magic wand when instructed in the Psych Test to "draw a house and a man", but I'd just spent 6 hours answering the same 5 questions over and over in every possible phrasing.Tabitha probably knew something about that I didn't know about myself.
This was a typical move for me: a bizzare career swerve for a 33 year old man, based completely on fantasy. Intellectually, I knew that I wouldn't fit into the police monoculture, I would hate the paramilitary aspects and resent the authority of small-minded highly traditional men, and I would more than likely endanger myself by having nothing to do with the rampant corruption and all the other bullshit that goes on in the NYPD, or by alienating myself from my co-workers by being me, which is to say, arrogant, aloof and weird. Not to mention Byzantine bureaucracy (sp.?), paperwork, stress, alcoholism, traffic detail and suicide.
I easily overlooked all of these excellent reasons to avoid working in law enforcement because I wanted power over people. I wanted to work Narco or Street Crimes. I wanted to drive through red lights, kick in doors and pistol-whip informants. The whole thing was tied up in a massive psychic knot of issues involving violence, danger, power, sex, needing-to-prove-myself. Which I do believe is true for a lot of cops, but I guess with me it was just a little too close to the surface.It was motivated by gut reasons in complete defiance of the head, and I followed it through as far as I could.
I have dangerous fantasies and I have shared some of them with her. I sometimes scare myself thinking about all the fucked-up schemes I could perpetrate with a trusting love.
The most dangerous one looks simple on the outside. I have a long-standing desire to run what I call a sexual soup kitchen for the sexually disadvantaged. This might include obese or unsighly persons, the unwashed, the lonely, the bad of personality....comic-book store clerks, video-game devotees, peep-show devotees. IN short, horny geeks of every make and model. This I call my constituency; the people with whom I most identify.There is almost no way for me to tell this without falling into black humor, but this fantasy is anything but funny on the inside. It's a fucked-up desire to somehow step outside of my body and direct events from above using proxies of me. It's pretty much my main "fantasy"...almost everything else I've actually done and I just call it "fucking and sucking".
I want to force my trusting love to service the men I indentify with. To SERVICE them, servile-y, to take into her their frustration and anger and contempt and also their desire and puppy love. They are me, I need to see it played out in front of me and to glory in my control of the situation and in my ability to shrug off the jealousy of my most jealous situation: seeing someone else treat her like I would. The actual mechanics are pretty blurry. We hunt and find a likely person and she approaches them and picks them up. All the possibilities of weird uncomfortable situations.
An extremely beautiful woman is bait and power. Men are idiots around it. I need to have the warm feeling of controlling that power and being above being controlled by it, to see the effect it has on others like me and look upon them with scorn because I have inner resources they lack. This is why this is a dangerous fantasy. Scorn for them, scorn and contempt for her and then playing my emotionally masochistic, I -cannot-be-defeated-by-this, self-jealousy games. Then other possibilities. Her cruelty to them, her contempt for them mixed with her desire to be a thing, a hole, to know that she really is the puppet everyone thinks she is. They fuck her, are sucked by her. In the fantasy I am urging them on, although I know that most people would be freaked out by that, but it's just a technicality. Maybe they are pre-screened for psychosexuality. In the end they realize something about themselves, that they need, must have, this soft sucking humble servile mouth and everything it means and that is when they see her other side.
I have twice walked away from relationships with people who fit this description.
The only person I could soft easy fuck these days is someone I'd been all the way with. This phenomenon seems to be getting worse and worse as my hair gets greyer and greyer. This brings me to my next point which is dangerous fantasies. I sometimes follow though on things that are potentially disastrous. For instance, against the advice of everyone I know, I tried my damndest to give up a promising career as a welder in order to join the NYPD. I went through the whole application process, passed all the tests, aced the city exam, and was finally Psychologically Disqualified by a blowdried hack PD shrink with a Beatrix-Potterlike name along the lines of, as I recall, "Tabitha Tiddlywinkle".I am told by those in the know that it was a big mistake to draw a ball-on-stilts space house on the moon and a gnome in curley-toed boots with a wizard cap and a magic wand when instructed in the Psych Test to "draw a house and a man", but I'd just spent 6 hours answering the same 5 questions over and over in every possible phrasing.Tabitha probably knew something about that I didn't know about myself.
This was a typical move for me: a bizzare career swerve for a 33 year old man, based completely on fantasy. Intellectually, I knew that I wouldn't fit into the police monoculture, I would hate the paramilitary aspects and resent the authority of small-minded highly traditional men, and I would more than likely endanger myself by having nothing to do with the rampant corruption and all the other bullshit that goes on in the NYPD, or by alienating myself from my co-workers by being me, which is to say, arrogant, aloof and weird. Not to mention Byzantine bureaucracy (sp.?), paperwork, stress, alcoholism, traffic detail and suicide.
I easily overlooked all of these excellent reasons to avoid working in law enforcement because I wanted power over people. I wanted to work Narco or Street Crimes. I wanted to drive through red lights, kick in doors and pistol-whip informants. The whole thing was tied up in a massive psychic knot of issues involving violence, danger, power, sex, needing-to-prove-myself. Which I do believe is true for a lot of cops, but I guess with me it was just a little too close to the surface.It was motivated by gut reasons in complete defiance of the head, and I followed it through as far as I could.
I have dangerous fantasies and I have shared some of them with her. I sometimes scare myself thinking about all the fucked-up schemes I could perpetrate with a trusting love.
The most dangerous one looks simple on the outside. I have a long-standing desire to run what I call a sexual soup kitchen for the sexually disadvantaged. This might include obese or unsighly persons, the unwashed, the lonely, the bad of personality....comic-book store clerks, video-game devotees, peep-show devotees. IN short, horny geeks of every make and model. This I call my constituency; the people with whom I most identify.There is almost no way for me to tell this without falling into black humor, but this fantasy is anything but funny on the inside. It's a fucked-up desire to somehow step outside of my body and direct events from above using proxies of me. It's pretty much my main "fantasy"...almost everything else I've actually done and I just call it "fucking and sucking".
I want to force my trusting love to service the men I indentify with. To SERVICE them, servile-y, to take into her their frustration and anger and contempt and also their desire and puppy love. They are me, I need to see it played out in front of me and to glory in my control of the situation and in my ability to shrug off the jealousy of my most jealous situation: seeing someone else treat her like I would. The actual mechanics are pretty blurry. We hunt and find a likely person and she approaches them and picks them up. All the possibilities of weird uncomfortable situations.
An extremely beautiful woman is bait and power. Men are idiots around it. I need to have the warm feeling of controlling that power and being above being controlled by it, to see the effect it has on others like me and look upon them with scorn because I have inner resources they lack. This is why this is a dangerous fantasy. Scorn for them, scorn and contempt for her and then playing my emotionally masochistic, I -cannot-be-defeated-by-this, self-jealousy games. Then other possibilities. Her cruelty to them, her contempt for them mixed with her desire to be a thing, a hole, to know that she really is the puppet everyone thinks she is. They fuck her, are sucked by her. In the fantasy I am urging them on, although I know that most people would be freaked out by that, but it's just a technicality. Maybe they are pre-screened for psychosexuality. In the end they realize something about themselves, that they need, must have, this soft sucking humble servile mouth and everything it means and that is when they see her other side.
I have twice walked away from relationships with people who fit this description.
MissTaken
Biker Chick
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2001
- Posts
- 20,570
Keep posting, all.
I am finding this train of discussion very interesting.
I have been with a Dom who was very much into violent sex and appeared to harbor malevolent feelings toward women when sexually charged.
When not so charged, he was respectful, courteous and loving.
I am finding this train of discussion very interesting.
I have been with a Dom who was very much into violent sex and appeared to harbor malevolent feelings toward women when sexually charged.
When not so charged, he was respectful, courteous and loving.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
MissTaken said:
That sounds a lot like me. But would he have come clean about his conflicted feelings; or would he have been afraid to injure his domly image?
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Moderator woman, when is the attachment-attaching function going to work? I have amusing drawings of Thumbo to post.
